Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Thought I would bring this back to the top from a debate we had here a couple weeks ago.

The question arose on how many times backbreeding a crossed snake to one of its original parent forms would make its DNA the as pure and undetectible. Keith and I were on a run with some of the isolated pops and intergrade zones of eastern forms. I am not sure if this fits into the grand scheme of things. You decide.

Here is the link . Its in the hybrid forum but thought I would bring it here:

http://forums.kingsnake.com/view.php?id=708724,709129

The question arose on how many times backbreeding a crossed snake to one of its original parent forms would make its DNA the as pure and undetectible.

A friend sent this to me recently.

A herper walks into a bar and orders a beer. The bartender takes half a glass of urine and half a glass of beer and pours them into a nice cold mug. He pours out half the mixture and tops off the mug with pure beer. He repeats this halving and refilling 4 or 5 times. Looks like pure beer to me. Drink up!

HA HA HA!

Most American beers taste like piss anyway.

Seriously have you read the post? Have you considered that a floridana and eastern are so closely related that the crossing them once or twice back to one or the other would make the dna hard to tell apart. Its not the same as like crossing a milk and a king.

It's like a creamsicle corn (emoryi x guttatus). After you breed it back to the corn a few times it doesn't look like a creamsicle anymore. Then what's the point of calling it a creamsicle? The thing is some people won't care and some will be pissed it doesn't look like a creamsicle and some will be pissed if you sell it as a pure corn. I just think we need to be honest in our representation of the animal. A lot of people aren't and that's a good reason why reputation is so important.

TC

Agree 100% The only thing missing is some consensus on terminology which I've advocated for years. Interestingly, and I don't mean to be throwing stones here but it was the "big" purist and locality guys who most resisted the discussion.

>>Agree 100% The only thing missing is some consensus on terminology which I've advocated for years. Interestingly, and I don't mean to be throwing stones here but it was the "big" purist and locality guys who most resisted the discussion.

Tony, what do you mean by "consensus on terminology?" Are you referring to the floridana x getula cross, and looking for a name for it?

I think I missed part of that discussion, not because I'm a purist or locality guy though. Probably because I don't keep any Eastern ssps of kings. I like some subspecies pure, and some localities, but I also like some generic forms and some crosses.

I hope I'm not stepping in the middle of anything here, but it is an interesting topic. If there's going to be some crossing of subspecies, I think there should be some kind of name for it. We discussed this idea on the "getula" forum earlier, and mentioned names like, splendida x californiae cross. Of course, many names, like the creamsicle corn, don't advertise the fact it is a subspecies or species cross.

Thanks for listening...

TC

Terry you aren’t stepping into the middle of anything. I would just ask if it’s reasonable to measure another’s reputations when our definitions are so esoteric? The recent spate over Kevin’s easterns is a great example. Kevin did do a cross and he knew that this didn’t matter to Rainer. He also knew that locality and purity was of interest to others and made assurances that the original stock of his locality line was collected well outside the range of goini. Personally I keep three lines of hypo coastals one of which is strictly of southern MD origin, the others being generic. I don’t see any one line as more valuable than the other and I suspect neither does Kevin of his wide-banded eastern project. He has or had two lines and worked both markets. No harm done. What is harmful however is when definitions are in fact esoteric (in this case personalized or understood by a few) yet are expected to be widely understood.

Anyway this, as best as I can remember is what we came up with as for definitions:

Hybrid - prodigy from captive breedings that cross species or greater lines. Example: Jungle corns.

Natural Hybrid - rare but naturally accruing prodigy from breedings that cross species or generic lines. Examples: red X yellow rats in GA.

Crosses - Prodigy from captive breedings that cross sub specific lines. Example: Apalachicola king X eastern king.

Integrade - Prodigy from natural breedings that cross sub specific lines. Example: milks from the central KS flint hills.

Locality specific - Any animal captive-bred or wc that has a credible claim to the local of original collection.

Purity - Big question mark here as the term is thrown around willy nilly. An animal can be locality pure but not taxonomically pure as is the case with intergrades. The most defendable usage of the term that I've come across (in the context of captive breeding) is the "ability to pass a similar suite of characteristics along to the next generation." I think that most would agree that this is something that integrades, crosses and hybrids do not do.

A further note on locality specific is that "locality" has not been given a definition that is widely accepted either. The current, and in my opinion, arbitrary usage of political borders undermines the concept and habitat or geographical features that contribute to population distinctiveness might be better delineators. As an example, instead of Ocean and Burlingtom County NJ eastern kings being two distinct localities they would fall under a single (NJ pine barrens) locality which would more accurately reflect natural distribution.

As for the question of FL X easterns, my personal take is this: If naturally occurring they should be considered integrades if they originate from captive breeding they should be called crosses. As to the question of back breeding (integrades or crosses) in the context of ad hock herpetoculture, I would only consider them “pure-bred” whenever a phenotype was selected for and made stable stable.

"The current...arbitrary usage of political borders undermines the concept and habitat or geographical features that contribute to population distinctiveness might be better delineators. As an example, instead of Ocean and Burlingtom County NJ eastern kings being two distinct localities they would fall under a single (NJ pine barrens) locality which would more accurately reflect natural distribution."

Very true Tony, I agree.

"with alterna many people say Hwy. 277. It is an approx. 80 mile road the main hunting area being about 20-30 miles with alterna throughout. I tend to divide this road between the lower grassy hills and the higher more vegetated hills. There is much overlap in appearance and no break in the geneflow but the lower grassy area seems to have more Blair's with washed out orange than the higher vegetated hills which seem to have more darker phases."

You the same guy?

Yes, those were my words. I always like these discussions because even though nobody ever seems to agree you still get a feel for what individual people think and weather you would ever buy anything from them.

I think you sent me an email a while back and I didn't reply. Sorry about that I was having problems with my computer and I couldn't send outgoing mail.

out of all the canned peaches I have tried I think the ones in heavy syrup are the best,they're just good!

I sometimes think we are all just a little to anal about all this and then I turn around and and won't breed z x y cause they are more than five miles apart?yet on other things I will just go by countys and then on other things states are good enough?go figure????????????
I guess it all boiles down to how rare the animal is?If it is very abundant you will for sure have a very tight locale regardless if its in pure form or in intergrade zone.

Shannon

Haha..good quote, Shannon. And some good points there.

There seems to be a lot of factors that could determine a locality name. Have we considered the fact that some localities have become protected species at some point and now the animal can't be sold legally w/o some kind of permit or legal i.d?

Interestingly, AZ almost voted to protect L. g. nigrita last year in se. AZ. That would have meant Arizonans couldn't keep any nigrita, or black king that looks like nigrita, w/o proof of it's origin, at least (a project I'm interested in is splendida/nigrita natural intergrades).

Back later....TC

Which means I will have to get down to southern Arizona THIS SPRING to get my limit of four. If you have your limit and then they close the season on them, you can be "grandfathered" claused and be allowed to keep them.

And there are definitely some interesting kings and intregrades down there.

Kerby...

Don't forget easier to breed as in all the Diamond x carpet pythons.

Another meaningless quote from you is "there are no Mtn kings on the White's". How is the weather?
-----
Rick Staub
R&R Reptiles

Tony, sorry it took so long getting back, but I had a really long day, and now only have a few minutes to answer.

>>Terry you aren’t stepping into the middle of anything. I would just ask if it’s reasonable to measure another’s reputations when our definitions are so esoteric?

I'm a relatively new participant on this forum and don't know a lot of the breeders of kingsnakes. I would just say I avoid people who don't seem to know much. I've made two recent purchases from people who seem to know their animals very well and didn't mind answering a few questions. I rarely buy something from someone I've never heard of or who doesn't present his animals in a way I can make a decision from. A lot has to do with the animals themselves too. Some snakes are only sold by a very few people. I do some research, mostly by reading the strands on this forum (since I'm building a kingsnake collection). So far, I think there are some very respectable people posting here. There may be some competition, but I think each person should just do their own thing and what they believe in. (To answer your question, if I'm not sure what the terms mean, I ask. If it seems the person isn't honest, I pass.)

Your list of definitions fits in great with the way I'm thinking. Thanks for taking the time to present this interesting info and your stance on things.

>>A further note on locality specific is that "locality" has not been given a definition that is widely accepted either. The current, and in my opinion, arbitrary usage of political borders undermines the concept and habitat or geographical features that contribute to population distinctiveness might be better delineators. As an example, instead of Ocean and Burlingtom County NJ eastern kings being two distinct localities they would fall under a single (NJ pine barrens) locality which would more accurately reflect natural distribution.
>>

I agree this is an interesting question about locality. Sometimes we can pinpoint an animal too much and leave out much of the exact habitat in an area outside the locality. I have to think some more about that as it affects a couple of my animals.

>>As for the question of FL X easterns, my personal take is this: If naturally occurring they should be considered integrades if they originate from captive breeding they should be called crosses.

I agree.

As to the question of back breeding (integrades or crosses) in the context of ad hock herpetoculture, I would only consider them “pure-bred” whenever a phenotype was selected for and made stable stable.

I would like to continue this discussion because I'm undecided on whether to call it pure, ever. I have a project in the works that will put me in that situation. If I end up with a morph that has some blood from another subspecies in it, but it looks exactly like the target locality animal, should I call it pure? Is this an "ethics" question? When I have some more time I would like to come back to this question, but I'm out of time right now.

Talk more later...TC

Terry notice I said "pure-bred". The animal in questin would in my opinion be somewhat of a domestic line. "Pure" in this hobby seems to connote a relationship with wild populations.

In hind site that answer was a bit flip. Truthfully Terry I don't know what you'd "call" it. I would consider it a "pure-bred domestic line" but knowing that people often hear what they want to using pure in any but the strictest sence would likely come back and bite you. In my collection I don't call an animal by a common name if I have any idea that it is otherwise. I guess the safest thing to do would be to give it a totally domestic name like "jungle corn" or always lable the offspring as crosses no matter how much they look like one of the parent species. At least that would prompt questions by those who are concerned about subspecific purity. Better to be safe than sorry.

It's an interesting situation, Tony. I guess I'm on the side of dealing with it rather than ignoring it. I'd rather know the cross or hybrid is there than not know and bring it into my collection and start mixing it with others that are "pure" or locality. I think it's easiest one situation at a time. In other words, I announce I have a new snake, which is from such and such cross, or whatever. Then we decide what we will call it. I think feedback from other breeders is in order, for me anyway. One big problem is always going to be the people who don't care much about their creations and introduce them into the hobby w/o ever telling anyone about them. Mostly I see types of ratsnakes pop up from time to time that don't look like any species or subspecies I've seen before. Then comes the question of, "What do you think this is?" Most of the general public has stuff they're not sure what the genetics are, if they think about that at all. Know what I mean?

TC

Terry, that's because originally (before they used an albino emoryi - which is orange btw) they used an albino corn (red) x GPR, offspring being 50% corn, 50% GPR and being het for albinism. If you breed those babies back to each other you can produce "Creamsicles" that are still 50% corn and 50% GPR. To me THAT IS A CREAMSICLE. The more you breed that first generation back to a corn snake the more redder that "Creamsicle" becomes and is now A VERY INACCURATE description.

BOTTOM LINE: A "Creamsicle" should be ORANGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When breeding "Creamsicles" back to corn snakes, you will slowly loose the orange while you increase the corn blood and IMO, THOSE SHOULD NOT BE CALLED CREAMSICLES - because THEY AREN'T. "Creamsicle" is a descriptive word.

So, how do we designate GPR in corn lineage? Simple, call it what it is! Here is what SHOULD BE SAID: Here is an amel corn (now redder than hell) that has GPR blood in it, but PLEEEASE don't call a red snake a creamsicle LOL

And the TRUTH IS: there is more GPR blood in A LOT OF MORPHS! People have been breeding their very diluted "Creamsicles" into every corn morph out there and have been doing so for quite some time.

Kerby...

>>And the TRUTH IS: there is more GPR blood in A LOT OF MORPHS! People have been breeding their very diluted "Creamsicles" into every corn morph out there and have been doing so for quite some time.
>>
>>Kerby...

I don't doubt that, Kerby, and that's one reason that I like locality sometimes. I'm starting a new line and I know exactly what it is I'm starting with.

Like Rainer said originally, after a few times of backbreeding to one of the original forms, one can hardly tell there's another present, even by most dna sampling. I agree with that. Not only are there creamsicles (albino) that look exactly like corns, but there are cinnamons (hypo) that look exactly like corns also, and who knows how many other corn morphs we don't know about that contain emoryi blood, or Emory's that contain corn blood.

The longer a species is bred in captivity the more chance you have of that. With kingsnakes it's probably just a question of time, if it hasn't happened already. Should a breeder label snakes they think are "crosses" alerting buyers to that fact. I think they should, imo. They can always have locality strains and what they call "pure" strains too, for the locality and pure people.

I'm not sure the hobby will accept the word "pure" though. Terminology seems to be a problem sometimes. But anyway, I plan to have some lines that are only one ssps..."pure", with locality starters for some, and some lines that are "crosses", with more than one ssps mixed in, because I believe with some species (like guttatus and getula) it's good to have some generics and some crosses, and they'll be in the hobby anyway.

I know this is a controversial subject, but I'm very interested. Hope eveyone is, ok, with me putting my 2 cents in. Good discussion and I hope it continues. Off to work...

TC

I would agree that if you had a FL X Eastern and you kept breeding back to an Eastern, then yes the dna would be hard to tell apart from a pure Eastern.

My former response was to the breeding of hybrids, since you stated that the original post started on there.

Sean, that was good.

Kerby...

A herper walks into a bar and orders a beer. The bartender takes half a glass of urine and half a glass of beer and pours them into a nice cold mug. He pours out half the mixture and tops off the mug with pure beer. He repeats this halving and refilling 4 or 5 times. Looks like pure beer to me. Drink up!

Kerby
I thought it was funny to but it really does not hold water nor apply to the whole dna arguement. If you mixed a beer and urine it would be like crossing a reptile to an earth worm. Otherwise which snake would represent the urine? Here we are talking snakes and it would be like mixing different beers. Lets say a German beer to a Belgian beer. Sometimes the mixed beer comes out better than any of the originals

cheers

That was fresh Rainer!

One other thing to think about is that mitochondrial DNA is for the most part only female inhereted. That is the mDNA in your body is a direct copy of your moms. Hence, no matter how many times you backcross, if you keep using females then the mDNA will never change.

This might not be really relevant to the discussion since mDNA does not code for phenotypic characters (ie color). Past that, I think the beer/urine analogy is dead on. The number of dilutions (backcrosses) that would be necessary to make the product close enough to pure would be much larger than you might think and really depends on what your definition of pure is. Would you consider the beer pure enough to drink if it contained only 0.5% urine or 0.00005% urine. Part of this debate also falls into whether it is the purity or just the knowledge that it is unpure. If the beer only contains 0.00005% urine, then there is no chance that you would be able to detect it, but getting past that barrier of knowing it is there is still a major deterrent. So a snake might similarly look absolutely pure, but if you know it isn't, that alone is a deterrent to some.

I did not follow the thread below, but a similar debate that is often brought up is the comparison of integrades to crosses of distinct subspecies or identifiable populations. There really is no comparison since integrades are not formed simply by crossing animals at the extremes. Integrades represent a whole suite of traits that have been selected for over many many years.
-----
Rick Staub
R&R Reptiles

What I was pointing out the "beer and the urine" do not represent closely related lifeforms (and these snakes which can produce fertile offspring definately are closely related) may share almost all of their genetic material in common. We share 98% with chimpanzees, so imagine how much closer it is in say ratsnakes and cornsnakes or the various forms of getula.

What does that 98% refer to though? Is that similar genes, is that sequence identity for a few conserved genes or is that exact sequences on all DNA. Obviously it is not the later since the total genome has not been completed for chimpanzees. Even if true it is just too simplistic to say 2% is not much of a difference. A 2% difference in the amino acid sequence of a protein is a huge difference. Some proteins are highly conserved over a broad range of species usually because they have a highly critical function that is identical. Others are very plastic. Even though they produce fertile offspring they are still separated by millions of years of evolution.

>>What I was pointing out the "beer and the urine" do not represent closely related lifeforms (and these snakes which can produce fertile offspring definately are closely related) may share almost all of their genetic material in common. We share 98% with chimpanzees, so imagine how much closer it is in say ratsnakes and cornsnakes or the various forms of getula.
-----
Rick Staub
R&R Reptiles

Yes and you would have to eat 50 bowls of Frosted Flakes just to get the nutrition found in one bowl of Total.

The beer urin thing is WAY off Rick! Yes both are liquid but for the vast majority of us both are not drinks. Now lets say that you mix 50% stout with 50% pale ale and start the prossess of back pouring. Not quite as revolting is it?

As I said, that depends on the point of view. From the responses I have seen from some, they would rather drink a little urine then own a hybrid.

>>The beer urin thing is WAY off Rick! Yes both are liquid but for the vast majority of us both are not drinks. Now lets say that you mix 50% stout with 50% pale ale and start the prossess of back pouring. Not quite as revolting is it?
-----
Rick Staub
R&R Reptiles

"would rather drink a little urine then own a hybrid"

Now THAT is standing by your principles! LOL

"I did not follow the thread below, but a similar debate that is often brought up is the comparison of integrades to crosses of distinct subspecies or identifiable populations. There really is no comparison since integrades are not formed simply by crossing animals at the extremes. Integrades represent a whole suite of traits that have been selected for over many many years."

>>>Totally agree on this. Tony D and I had this discussion along time ago and I think we both agreed that the term "intergrade" should be reserved for snakes derived from natural intergrade populations.