Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Hmmmmmmmmmm This is such an old arguement, its kinda like Chevys and Fords and Toyotas and Nissans. They are pure but what if you put a ford drivetrain in a Chevy, it then becomes a hybrid. What about if you put a ford clutch in a chevy, what is it now? All in all, these things come with a label from the factory.

Why I bring this up is simple, reptiles do not have a set factory that builds snakes to specs. Nature builds animals to suit, As in custom. To suit what you ask, to suit changing nature.

Again I bring that up to help you understand, there are two basic approaches to keep a wild snake successful, first the specs, genetics, then equally important, selection. These work hand in hand to keep a species a species. Or is that wrong too, of course it is, all animals are in a constant state of change. They are all on their way to being something or going exstint. They never are something, they are only on their way to something.

Also consider, the specs are not genera specific or species specific or subspecies specific, they are population specific. That is each population is unique to itself.

Why I bring that up is the use of the term "pure". If your going to stick your neck out and use that term, then you surely such understand what it means. Many of you go by counties, populations do not use counties, they use both habitat and behavior restrictions to difine populations. No, not countries or states or counties, or parishes.

So you can indeed have "pure" genetic pairs in captivity, that is if they were caught in the same exact place. But there seems to be some behavioral selection going on. So maybe "pure" would only discribe a sexual pair that chose eachother in nature. And of course, you can find that too. I am not sure to many of you actually have that.

So, you can have half "pure" animals, but what you forget is the other half, selection. All populations change genetically responding to the pressures of selection. We have that too, but its different, we select for pinky feeders, rubbermaid specialists, color and pattern( how many of you keep the ugly ones?)

Also, this is about kingsnakes which are not bound to a specific tight set of color and pattern restrictions. In otherwords, kingsnakes are polymorphic, they undernormal conditions produce many colors and patterns. Yet you go by color and pattern to difine your "pure" kingsnakes. I am so very confused.

I would think of kingsnakes as being a progressive snake, that is, they are not restricted to going out of style. Their genetics allows for a realitively wide spectrum within a single clutch. I would guess the advantage of this is clear. It would insure a higher chance of success in a changing enviornment. Are any of you getting this?

While this seems hard to see, here in the states, specially in the east(relatively constant enviornment). In other areas, deserts and other countries, this is much easier to observe.

A good example is Australia, its a country of huge weather changes and huge climate changes. An example is wet and drought, much of the country commonly suffers from years of wet, followed by years of drought.

This makes it easy to see why a reptile would "shotgun" color and pattern. Its easy to see a change of apparent dominate color patterns in a very short period. For instance red ackies are a type of monitor that lives in the west. In coastal desert areas. In dry years, they are very very red to match the red sands. In wet years, the dominate color is yellow or brown, to match the growth of ground cover. Please understand, they do not change color, they change individuals. In the dry years, the ones that blend in, survive longer then the ones that don't. Same goes for the wet years, only now it requires a different color. This selection allows a dominate color and pattern to exsist, not exactly genetics. Genetics was wide, selection is not.

Did the genetics change, no. They always had the same genetics, they threw both color types and everything inbetween, its all about selection.

How this effects us is simple, our pure snakes are only pure for a moment, then because they lack what keeps them pure, selection, they quickly become captive mutts or mutations.

This was and is seen by us old fellas, only we didn't understand the reason. We would just say this, you know, I used to commonly find really nice ones(lots of red, wide bands, etc etc) here, but for some reason, they are not here anymore.

So for me, I have been watching nature for so many years and have seen these changes. I have to wonder about what and why you seem to need the word "pure" I really think its more about you, then the animals. Again ALL this is only food for thought. Which is why we have brains and a conciousness. FR

Frank, I have read that years back breeders kept thier snakes in groups. That includes Kings and Milks. Since you mentioned selection I am wondering if it had ever been noted that certain snakes had a preference for a specific mate when kept in groups or did they all turn on for the most part once one female released pheremones? I think that is very interesting you mentioned finding Hybrids in the field too. Some people think that never happens. Even though the topic of purity comes up time and time again I think it is a good thing to discuss. I would like to hear what people define as
a Line
a Strain
a Hybrid
an Intergrade
and Locale Specifc myself. With snakes often being so variable in appearance in general....it is easy to be misled whether it happens intentionally or unintentionally. Line breeding also comes to mind, as I had thought many of the vibrantly colored Mexicana were basically non existant in the wild, basically a man made variant....yet I have seen pics of some that were close as far as the bright coloration. Tom Stevens

Yes, I kept kings in groups, and yes, there were bonded/perferred pairs. But as all of you know, its not manditory with snakes.

What we saw was, mostly when raised together, a pair would hang out at all times, they seemed to be in love, the males would get all goo goo eyed and constantly have their heads on the female, even when not cycled. The females would voluntarily breed the bonded/preferred male very early in the cycle, while not tail gaping other males. of course, late in the cycle, they would breed a doorknob. Consider, I watch many wild pairs of gilas/torts/rattlesnakes/lyresnakes/kingsnakes, etc, that meet the exact same male, year after year. But, there are those in nature that do not meet up with the same male, as well. I think this pairing is the most successful stradgy of many they use.

Again, with captive snakes its not cut and dry or even required. Its just the difference between a good running race car and a great running racecar. To some, thats all the difference in the world.

On the otherhand, with monitors it was clearly benefitual and greatly increased success. FR

That is very interesting. You do not often hear anyone suggest that happens with snakes. I have heard though that with Womas, some snakes in captivity seem to be unreceptive to one potential mate, but will breed another one without hesitation. I read that breeders sometimes traded snakes that were uncooperative and they got busy almost immediately. I found that odd that one horny male would be trying his luck and get nowhere but another would complete the mission. It made me think, that for some odd reason the female simply said to herself...I aint into this guy LOL. I found out this year how important it is to have backup males in case one does not work out and in the future will want 2 or 3 for any projects I work with. I am hoping that some others read the above posts where I ask for definitions of Lines, Strains, Hybrids, Intergrades and Locales. Especially because with Brooksi, which are very popular on this forum....there seems to be talk of a few labeled types of Hypos[and 2 Axanthics too] that all are a little different than each other but are compatible. Interesting talks on here these days....it is a lot of fun. I hope it keeps going. Tom Stevens

>>a Line
A line is simply selective breeding for certain charatersitics. Once those have been established I guess one can refer to that as a line kinda like the Love's Okeetee Corns etc...

>>a Strain
A strain is referred to as a type of mutation again like corns with anerythristic mutaation there is Type A and Type B so 2 different strains or the Peanut Butter and the Hypo. These arent compatible either.

>>a Hybrid
Breeding 2 different species i.e. Pantherophis and Lampropeltis.

>>an Intergrade
An intergrade is when you have 2 or more subspecies with overlapping ranges that interbreed. The result is populations of intergrades with traits from each or more from one than the other depending on geography and population size etc...

>>and Locale Specifc myself.
Locale specific is a particular animal from a county or even a road (Alterna guys lol). Its been suggested that locality should be broken down by habitat and thats probably true but habitat is so fragmented these days it may not be relevant in all cases. County info is simply a tool but it doesnt define a look as many differing animals can come from a single county. Plus Im sure snakes dont stop at county lines and return home so they dont mess up there locale status lol.

Keith
-----

.....you will also have to add to that list unatural intergrades ( overlapping subspecies to subspecies breeding in captivity)like the eastern x brooksi, brooksi x goini ect that we discussed so much in this forum (unless you forgot and want to call them "intergrades")lol. Then the greenish rat that has been crossing in nature for generations is comparable to the wide band eastern you say are crossed with goini. Why call them easterns when they are natural or unatural intergrades? Thats why Kevin Enge called them "Bumblebee kings".

So you are going to have to relist natural and unatural definitions for all those terms you listed. Its not as simple as you put it.

There was a great post by Paul Hollander or Chris Harrison (I can't remember who) a while back on this and I am trying to find it.

Hey Keith,just to make sure I have my story straight let me ask[you and everyone] about the types of Hypo and Axanthic Brooksi. With Axanthics you hear of New England and Lemke. However I often hear the New England called a strain and the Lemke a line? With Hypos there was/is the Loves, Mark Bells, Doug Beards and I think I am missing a few...and we are excluding Peanut Butter which is not compatible....but the two Axanthics are as well as the few Hypos. That is correct no? I have spoken with people who seem to assume if for example they take a wild caught snake and breed it to a Lemke Axanthic....then breed the hets and produce offspring they have created a new line. Many breeders hope to produce something they can attatch thier name too. Yet they are not even certain of what the difference is between a line and a strain. This is why I had hoped more people would have replied, the sooner we're all on the same page with these common terms the happier everyone will be.... Tom Stevens

Axanthics. There are 2 lines and they are compatible. The only difference is the Brooksi used to get each line going. I think the NE initially used better Brooksi so its more refined. The Lemkes had fertility problems with Axanthic males so it got behind. I dont think they suffer from this anymore though.

Hypos. Same thing there are various origins but they are all compatible. You have the Love Line the Krysko Line the Beard Line and I guess the Bell Line but the newer lines are probably from the other 3 three lines. All are compatible just different animals used to get the various lines going so they have their own look to a certain extent.

The PB's Raynor has seem to be a Hypo but from what Ive read here they dont breed true with other Hypo's. Maybe like the Lavender and Albino Cal Kings not being compatible mutation wise.

Keith
-----

I was the first to breed the NE axanthis into a Lemke axanthics. At that time I also bred the hypo Beard line to the Love line. Both these produced hypo and axanthics but here is what I think.

Just because you have two similar alleles does not determine if you have a line. OR DOES IT?

For instance it was discovered that the hypos brooksi popping up in everyones collection a few years ago could be traced back to the Loves w/c animals.

On the other hand, the axanthics have not been traced back to any single source. So are they a line? Share the same father? hmmm.

Now if you look at the compatiple axanthic line from BHB Enterprises you will notice this is a very different looking axanthic.Yet they are compatible with the other axanthics. (Line?)

I also bred a whitesided Black ratsanke (aka- Licorice Stick) to a Whitesided Everglades (aka-Ghost Glades) a few years back. The babies came out all Whitesided. Are they a line? Same strain?

If you breed a albino corn to a albino Calif king the babies will all be albinos. Line? Strains? Related?

LOL! Which bring us full circle back to hybrids.

Your speaking of exactly what I am trying to figure out? If things ARE compatible does that mean they should not have an individual breeders name attached to the morph???? Meaning are they all one in the same....but just variants like we see in wild types. In other words instead of Lemke line and New England line maybe they should be Lemke variant and New England Variant??? Do I think that will stick? Not in a crillion years but look at the so called Anery Honduran Milk....it is actually a Hypo Erythristic but we all call them Anerys...what the hell is wrong with us snake guys?!?!? Tom Stevens

Tom

Since the beginning of time God gave us humans the chore of naming the animals. At this point we are all still learning what to call all the pretty traits they exhibit are. From a hobbiest standpoint I think the whole reccessive traits need to be revised. Don't forget people who are Doctors say they are practising in what they call "a practice". There is no set in stone answers for reccessive traits. I found this out first hand from Dr. Bern Bechtel. We are learning something different everyday. Hypo line this and axanthic strain that. They are all just names assigned to make us feel comfortable and worthwhile.

In the mean time what in the world is this. A t perhaps?


(Careful trick question.)

It's a C. Short for cool!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Tom Stevens

I think you guys are looking at it too deep. If someone is born albino and then halfway around the world another baby is born albino it doesnt mean they are related if they eventually bred and produced albino's. A line is something that a breeder creates by picking and choosing what goes into his mix. The NE line started independant to the Lemke line. Yes they are compatible but that doesnt mean they came from one source but then again maybe they did ??? Who knows in fact nobody will ever. Once breeders got ahold of those axanthics and started line breeding for color they became a line. If I take Reiners PB Brooksi and get some really nice wild types and start line breeding for red head then its a line. Now would I call em Hillson red Heads ? No, but regardless they would still be line bred for red head and hence would be considered a line.

Keith
-----

However I wonder a lot about Brooksi in particular for a few reasons.
1. I they're truly looked at as South Florida Kings[and you know I think there are also similar types up north like Krysko thinks]then they would ALL be from a fairly small range.
2. A dealer I met in South Florida told me he could take me to an area where he knew most everyones founding stock comes from, and scoffed when I mentioned lines and strains to the point where he said" I can get a Brooksi from anywhere....and they'll all still be related".
3. I think it is odd that things happen like within the Axanthics for example. The 2 types are compatible yet only one was known to have problems with fertility? That's wierd...

I understand this is digging deep. I still think it is interesting to talk about though. Tom Stevens

Hybrid - prodigy from captive breedings that cross species or generic 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: classic blotched phase goini.

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 wily nily. 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 coastal plains milk snakes being two distinct localities they would fall under a single (NJ pine barrens) locality which would more accurately reflect natural distribution.

Now I wish we could make it a sticky for mandatory reading

Excellent Tony, very well put. If you would.,...please tell me how you describe Lines and Strains? I totally agree about your thoughts on Locale Specifics. I think counties and what not are best left to be labeled when speaking in general....and that contradicts the term specific so......... I am not a fan of locale specifics as the term is often used in unison with Pure. This is why I like to talk about things like this. I want to have the best idea of things as far as specifics, but when you dig a little deeper there's more to be said than the name of a county. Tom Stevens

Websters dictionary defines a strain as:

"descendants of a common ancestor; race; stock; line breed; variety"

I refer to my line of corns (Dream Corns)as a strain but suppose "line" could be used interchangably.

The important thing is to be honest about your classification of your stock which includes being honest to yourself. I hear too much rationalization applied to "locality stock" about them being pure and others somehow not. That is what really turns me off to the concept.
Dream Corns

At the Oklahoma IHS many years ago, they had a hybrid discussion panel. The moderator was Dr. Joesph Collins(a noted taxo) The proponent was me(hahahahahahaha the only one) The opponents were the rest of the zoo and private world.

The discussion was a mess, as the opponents when on babbling in tougue. I did not get a single word in. Then Dr. Collins, stopped the proceedings and explained. I do not care that Mr. Retes is crossing a pyro to a blairi, or a ruthevens to a mex mex, as long has he labels them correctly, but that would be true for any of you.(his concern was with animals offered to preserved collections) My concern, said Dr. Collins, is when you fellas cross an individual from one end of its range to one from the other or of unknown locality and put them in collections as one or the other. At that time, most reptiles in zoos were from importers with no real collection data. Yet zoos were writing papers and preserving specimens, and citing localities.(still goes on to this day)

He also said, I see no use for what Mr. Retes is doing at this time, but who knows what the future will bring. I can tell what a cross(the ones FR is doing) looks like, but I cannot tell when the animals appear to be the same, but are not.

So in his mind, anything that is not from a common locality is a cross. A hybrid is the same if the parents are considered different species(at the time)

Just more conversation, FR

Generally I disagree with just about anything Collins says, however in this case he is right on two counts:

1)In the broadest context any breeding of organisms possessing dissimilar traits is called a hybrid.

2)Who cares as long as you label your stock honestly?

I think the context of this discussion, which has been going on for far too long, the broadest definition does not suit. In any case the definitions I posted were the result of a collaborative effort of some of the more thoughtful posters on these forum (Aaron, KJ, Terry to name a few). I’ve been using them for some time with little complaint and offer them whenever the subject comes up. They aren’t perfect but in this context they have worked well for me.

In the past year I have also added the following:

Locality stock is population specific AND I don't offer stock as "locality" unless the founder stock was captured by myself or a very close associate. Its hard to get flamed by a locality apostle using that standard!

The thing is some people act like their stock is superior because of the purity, yet we can't agree on what is pure so this comes up time and time again. It also draws Hybrids/Integrades into the picture...time and time again. I agree with you 0, that is the reputation of the breeder that matters most. If someone is well known to represent their stock honestly and the look of their snakes adds up to what it is labeled as then that's about as good as we can get in most cases. I hate to see someone post a pic of a snake, recite its history, and then still have people throw in their explanation of why it isn't what it is supposed to be. If someone's goal is to keep locale specific animals as best as they can that's great, but I have seen many non locale animals that were simply prettier snakes. I think many of the looks we see in captive born snakes gradually change every few years although no other sub species is introduced,,,,,but as soon as that happens many times someone will start throwing accusations of how it is a hybrid. Seeing I like Hybrids I don't care, but I am happy to say I have friends and customers who will take my word for what I offer, and that is all that matters to me. There's a lot of two faced snake guys out there,....people who damage other peoples reputations with claims they mixed this with that. It is hard to prove much of anything anymore...and even when a snake is first generation from wild caught parents people will still come up with some theory or another about an escaped pet tainting a population or that one of the parents was an integrade,,,,ya know what I mean? Who even knows how pure these pickled specimens in museums and colleges are? I recently asked about classification of Pituophis south of the border on the Pit forum. Someone replied with some answers that really were interesting, you may want to check it out. Tom Stevens

Tom I’m glad that you too recognize the problem. I fought it for some time but have since learned that you’re not going to change the habits of others by trying to impress upon them definitions that they don’t want. The only things you really can do are along the following lines:

Don’t respond to them. Generally they’re simply attempting to establish themselves as an authority. Not responding frustrates that effort.

Don’t buy from them. There is a specific big time “locality’ pit breeder who proselytizes to his worshipful followers that he would “never do business with anyone who EVER worked with hybrids”. My solution, never do business with him.

Lastly and most effectively, be very careful and consistent in how you use terminology. The ones I posted were a collaborative effort and they have served me well such that I don’t feel the need to use “pure” in my descriptions.

Further as for superiority of stock how well animals in a breeder’s charge are cared for is the mark of superiority I use. If I could only have a single animal I’d pick one of Rainers bomber large hybrids over skinny, overly line bred for no good reason locality stock any day.

I have to say I think we're on the same page. Honestly I have been posting a lot and trying to keep busy because my first few clutches should pip soon and waiting is driving me nuts. A lot more people read this forum than post on it so though this is redundant it is still worth our time to let people know they should do a little research on the history of thier snakes and the rep. of the seller. I do not the like the "extremeist' attitude in the hobby either. It all goes back to the I am better than you and my snakes are better than yours type of thing. I am gonna start a new post about that. Thanks for writing
Tom Stevens

I think you do bring up a good point. I would think that it is common place for locality buffs to collect or buy a pair of snakes from a given place and then immediately upon the first clutch of eggs hold back those hatchlings with the best pattern, highest contrast etc.. This may make these animals still locality specific but with each succesive generation they are to some degree evolving along a separate trajectory than their wild brethren. Without natural selection snakes are no longer what they were or what they were meant to be. This is one of the dilemnas that is faced by hobbyist and it is impossible to reconcile. I don't know if I like the term pure when applied to snakes. Locale specific animals are what they are however. No more, no less. Simply animals whose genetic material is derived from a specific place of origin. If I was to use the term pure I would use it only to describe specimens that were found in the field. Locality snakes is the best that we can hope since we can not duplicate evolution within the confines of a sweater box. It may not be a perfect system but to me it is far more interesting to work with those animals than it is to cross locales to come up with the latest designer hobbyist morph. I respect each keepers right to keep what they want and look down at no one for doing what makes them happy. I prefer snakes that are as close to possible to how they occur in the natural world. This to some degree is still an obtainable goal especially if new genetic material is introduced from the same locale on occasion. I would not view these snakes as mutts. The genetic material that they have is what has been obtained over thousands of generations in the wild. Though the natural selection process ends in captivity the genetics are still there. And that's what makes each population unique in its own way. All is not lost by breeding one snake collected on one end of the corn field to one that was found beside the barn. Thousands of years of evolution is not lost on one chance encounter, even if that chance encounter occurs in a rubbermaid. Phil

IMHO after a few generations of artificial selection they are pure captive-bred and little else. Nice post!