Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Does anyone have or know of anyone who has pedigreed cheynei? I mean from snakes crawling through the forest to USCB snakes today (I guess they don't have to be specifically U.S.A. captive bred, but Australian CBB hardly matters for this discussion). - Pedigreed back to founding stock-

I have always accepted that the majority of the "north end" carpets here in US captive collections had murky pedigrees at best, regardless of what Joe Q. Carpet breeder is telling you. But you know what they say about assumptions...

It funny to me that people speak about their carpets with 100% assurance that their snakes are "pure" this, or "pure" that. Or that a given animal doesn't have diamond, or jungle, or whatever "in it".

As if you can look at any USCB spilota type animal and say that it has this or that in it. IMHO this is absurd. That's akin to saying Mr. So and So has no Inuit in him because he is tall. The only way you would know that Mr. so and so "has no inuit in him" is to have access to a record of his ancestors (Written pedigree, or I assume that there are DNA tests that would yield the same info).

Don't tell me about the "pure" jungle you bought from a guy who got it from (Insert Big Name Breeder of Choice) at a show.....or the carpet you got from a some wholesaler that they call "pure" jungles.

So PLEASE, correct me if I am wrong. As a "Jungle" lover I would love to see pedigreed lineages. I would snatch some up in a heartbeat. I am just skeptical that they exist.
Thoughts?

Thanks for looking
Ben

I know that nothing here in the states can be traced back to founding stock, but I think it's equally absurd to "assume" that all carpets are of mixed anscestry. Very few jungles were crossed with diamonds 15 years ago while most jungle type animals were bred to other jungle type animals. Assuming that all jungles must have diamond because of this fact is equally absurd IMO. There are true lineages of jungles out there, and it's safe to "assume" who's they are. I know several breeders that imported the founding stock and they were never bred to diamonds...ever. I know Casey Lazik, and Terry Vandeventer, and Montgomery, Black, and some VPI lines have never been bred to diamonds. That is as soon as they reached US soil. That's not to say that they weren't bred with diamonds in Europe. They may have been.

For me, I'm not claiming that I have pure jungles, but who can prove it anyway? Look at it this way. Wild populations straight from Australia are nothing more than different isolated or geographic races of intergrades. Even if we imported legally some wild cheynei how would you know they have never had coastal in the lineage? You wouldn't.....cause they naturally do what others have bred them for here. I'm not justifying the act of laziness by breeding two carpets of different appearances just cause you're lazy, but I don't think it hurts if there are clear and distinct goals in mind if carpets of different ssp are bred together. It adds diversity. which is exactly what you find in the jungles of the Atherton Tablelands with jungles...and all other spp too.

I couldn't agree more that even a cheynei straight out of the rainforest isn't neccesarily a "pure" jungle. And I am also mindful of the fact that in the greater scheme of things, a species (or subspecies, or whatever) is not a "real" thing. It is a grouping humans use to understand them better.

I am not saying that the "mixed" ancestory is neccesarily from diamonds or diamond x jungles. I was also refering to coastals being crossed with jungles. I can't tell you how many times I have been at a show or seen a classified with an animal that CLEARLY was misidentified (according to Barker and Barker's diagnostic). My point is that many people may think that they have jungles which are in fact coastals, or vice versa or whatever. So these are then bred, labeled or sold as whatever, and so on.

Be clear about one thing- I am not "judging" or advancing the opinion that these potentially "mixed" lines are any better or worse than "pure" jungles. I have never really cared. Looking like a cheynei is good enough for me usually. Who cares if a coastal was it's great grandfather or whatever.
BUT- if someone has documented animals I would be interested (alright so I am interested in EVERY jungle I see....)

One more thing- I don't disagree that some of the more established breeders who have been around for a minute may have lineages that trace back to founding stock. But I don't think many of them (if any) still work with them. Maybe I am wrong, but I think Casey Lazik got out of Jungles a while ago, and last I heard the Barkers weren't working with Jungles any more either.

Again- if I am wrong please correct me.
Ben

How do you tell what ssp an animal is, other than color and length? Are there scale counts, different head shapes, etc that differentiate coastals from diamonds from jungles from wp/ijs? I'm just curious.

I have animals from what I consider some of the best breeders of both jungles and ijs in the us. I really do admire the systems that the serious and reputable green tree people have to identify their animals. It makes each snake seem like an individual-- and that is what I really like, as everyone in my collection is an individual with a name, as are their parents. (At least the carpets. You could never ask a big ball breeder to have that. . . but that's a different thread.)

I wouldn't mind some sort of pedigree system in carpets that gave you id numbers, or something, so that instantly you would know about their lineage. Even if the animal was an "intergrade." Many will argue, but it seems to me intergrades are the future of carpets.

This discussion so far has intrigued me. Carpets are interesting in their variability between the ssp. Still, wouldn't it be nice to know not necessarily what you've got's entire lineage, but at least their lineage from point X? I think it would.

The question is almost an absurd one for several reasons, the biggest being that cheynei is a creation of taxonomists who try to decribe what has taken nature many millenia to accomplish. And from what I have read, cheynei and mcdowelli are not that different genetically, though the "pure" specimens look quite different from each other. But then chondros and Carpets look quite different but are evidently closely related.

Remember that by definition subspecies are our way of descibing different geographic populations within the same species where there is a zone of intergradation between the "pure" races. That said, intergrades are also natural.

We have had this discussion ad nauseum at the moreliapythons.com forum and there are enough opinions to go around. My feeling, shared by some and abhorred by others is that we should call animals here "Jungle type" or "Coastal type" to describe a "look" that we see as an ideal for that group, and obvious intergrades should be called such.

I would also venture a guess that in the next major taxonomic revision of Carpets, cheynei and mcdowelli will cease to be separate entities. Won't that confuse everyone but the snakes on the ground?
-----
Jim

1st of all I don't think that the question is absurd at all. Certainly not any more absurd than the claims that Joe Q carpet breeder has Pure cheynei. Also no offense but, I don't need you to explain to me what a subspecies or geographic race is. I know that subs can and do integrade, yada yada yada. Having said that I think that we are on the same side. Maybe I didn't articulate my post well (it was early in the morning- lol)
My point was there are lots of people posting "pure" whatevers... So let's see some proof. For me in this scenario proof would be defined as pedigree back to founding stock. I know there are a million points of contention in this definition. Were they "pure" jungles to begin with, is the pedigree verifiable, etc....I am just using it as a place to start.
I would love nothing more than for the carpet community to adopt the "type" vernacular, that is already common in GTPS.
Thanks for all the responses-
Ben

You already know the answer regarding Joe Q carpet dealer so why ask the question? And anyone can "create" a pedigee. Unless you buy directly from an importer that you trust the answer is you never can know.

As for making a point about subspecies and intergradation, other people might be reading this who might not have your level of sophisiticated understanding. No need to get insulted over it as no offense was intended. My sincerest apologies.
-----
Jim

Didn't mean to come across as a know it all Jim, sincerly. Was a little snippy wasn't it? I was mostly just frustrated that my original post didn't get exactly the type of response I was looking for. My fault there too probably, I wasn't very clear initially.

I am just sick of seeing misrepresented animals. Buyer beware I guess. And while I am sure that many if not most people reading this thread know better than to believe that shady mc carpet breeder's animals are true jungles, I feel bad for newcomers (to snakes in general or jungles specifically)who may be tricked by these marketing tactics. And again I am not placing more or less value on "pure" strains vs. "mutts", I am only addressing the labels themselves.

And yeah the documents could easily be forged (I pointed this out), but it wouldn't seem likely to me that a reputable breeder would risk their rep and business for this.

Matt, I think you may be wrong. According to Dave Barker, their original animals were verified(Through DNA testing) Atherton Tableland Jungles. Dave Barker was defending his stock on Morelia when members were commenting on how, many times, VPI line jungles will muddy with age. Now, VPI stock, who knows what people have bred them with but original VPI animals were supposedly verified as "pure". There is a post by Dave on Morelia in regards to this somewhere, but I don't know where exactly. Supposedly, they still have some descendants from their original stock but are not breeding them or releasing offspring, I don't know for sure.

Andrew

Yes Andrew, I know that the Barkers are, or were working with Atherton Tablelands stock. That's why I said it was safe to include them in the list of pure jungles. Maybe I was unclear with my post. I also know that Terry Vandeventer had documented Atherton stock as well, so as for that goes...there are two lines that are suppose to be pure.

I'm sure Casey's line is pure considering how he got them as well.

Exactly what part of my post are you saying I was wrong in Andrew..out of curiosity?

Matt Wrote: "Exactly what part of my post are you saying I was wrong in Andrew..out of curiosity?"

Matt wrote: "I know that nothing here in the states can be traced back to founding stock"

That's where my above response stemmed from. Not being confrontational just letting Ben know that there are collections of Jungles in the U.S. that have been DNA tested and are as "pure" as the wild populations in Australia and that some breeders have direct descendants from their original verified "pure" stock. Ex. Barkers

Andrew

I know you weren't being confrontational. Sometimes I'm just not very clear. I kinda even didn't make sense to myself when I looked back at it...lol. I see why you said it now.

I'm the same way sometimes Matt, I will write something but more often say something, and be like, "what the heck was I talking about". Anyways peace out

Andrew

Many of these animals are crosses in the wild anyway. I had a discussion with Soeren of Precision Reptiles about this subject just the other day. He told me that he spent several months in OZ, herping different locales for carpets. In one case, he found a perfect jungle on one tree, and a perfect coastal in the same tree, but on a lower branch. Were they pure? I doubt it. In the wild these animals mix blood fairly often. Often enough to make any "purity" claims sort of moot IMHO. Sure there are isolated populations, but since we don't track most of these carpets with Locale name anyway, then its a lost cause. i agree with Jim O that the best practice is to just start calling them "type" carpets.

Shawn

That is exactly my point, Shawn. I know that there are claims of "genetic testing" but as I said, there is evidently genetic information suggesting little real difference between some of the subspecies, particularly cheynei and mcdowelli.

So while we may be able to say that certain animals are directly descended from certain imports, the question is "what does that mean?". I guess that the answer varies with one's viewpoint.

I like nice looking snakes. I like my "VPI line" Jungle types which may or may not have Diamond in them. And I like my Coastal types too, some of which descend from Coastal/Diamond intergrades originally "imported" by Casey Lazik. I have no intention of crossing them as I see no aesthetic reason to do so, but not because of issues of "racial purity". I know that many agree and many disagree. But that's my opinion.
-----
Jim