Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Isn't sad that hardly anyone knows the original locality of the bloodlines anymore? Realistically less than 10% of anybody has animals that are not generic...let alone muddled crossbred animals.....Where are the locality nuts? Have we all died?
Bloodlines are important, trying to keep them pure is truly important, and unfortunately the "morph" market and its financial drive has diluted the desire for pure known animals.
I know many of you will read this and not care...many others think I am nuts...but please, do not cross your gene pools (corn/king x milk, etc...) let alone interbreed triangulum within their own.....
Ok I will quit tub thumping now..Thank you for your time...

Hey I agree with you but you might still be nuts.

Later Jason

You know what I think is sad? Some locality nut crying about what other breeders do when he can't control his or her own impulses.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. If you want to keep "pure" animals thats fine, great even. Simply eliminate all subjective criteria in the selection of YOUR stock and you'll never have to worry about an unpure animal getting into your collection. If you can't control your impulses and do this (an assumption I know but why else would you care what others do) you have no business crying about the impulses of other breeders.

......and I agree with him. Back when some of us older types were in the hobby strong, locality data meant a lot to those who really were into the various subspecies of milks. After all, locality data dictates which subspecies you have. And while it is true that there are no cut and dried lines as to when one begins and one ends, there are specific ranges for all subspecies. These often include large intergradation zones between them where animals cannot be identified to either subspecies with accuracy.

As Bob S. and I discussed a few days ago in the "HUGE Black Milksnake" thread, what people do with their snakes is their business. No one is implying that you need to do it a certain way. To each his own.

I don't personally understand why someone would artificially create an intergeneric hybrid between, let's say, a corn snake and kingsnake. In nature there are reproductive isolating mechanisms that would not naturally allow these two different genera of snakes to successfully reproduce. Of course, bring them in captivity and they behave different and then you have these "jungle corns" or whatever they're called. But again, to each his own.

I don't think Riley is trying to dictate here what everyone should do with their snakes. To date there have not been "natural" (in the wild) intergeneric hybrids between Elaphe and Lampropeltis. And the same would even go for the SinCals (Sinaloans X Cal Kings). Those two snakes' ranges don't even come close to one another. It is just something that you would not find naturally in the wild. And I guess that is the whole point. But again, to each his own.

However, as I mentioned in the thread a few days ago, I have seen some of the tropical milksnakes that have been advertised as Hondurans that you can clearly see a lot of stuarti in, both albinos and normals. There are folks working with Andean X Hondurans, and even some mention of attempts to cross Hondurans with both Black milks and even micropholis. Why? Some of these rarer subspecies are just neat by themselves. I personally think that the previously mentioned two examples would do nothing other than ruin an otherwise unique genetic line.

Keep in mind that those "locality nuts" you referred to actually know where those animals originated and can point to that on a map, and therefore using the current body of knowledge we have about the ranges of milksnake subspecies, have a pretty good idea of what it is they have. To some of us, that is better than not knowing and just having some Heinz 57 mix of whatever.

If it were a Black milk that you wanted, imagine buying babies and spending a few years raising them to adults, only to see that they have not become what you thought they were because somewhere along the line someone thought it'd be a good idea to throw some Honduran bloodline in the mix.

I realize the hobby has changed since back when locality data meant something, but it is that locale specific bloodline kept as pure as possible that means you will actually get what you paid for with no hidden surprises later on!!

Scott Ballard

Its as Ive always argued against the hybrid or the unnatural intergrade crowd. They always say its just what they like and they have every right to do what makes them money or feel good but what they like can interfere with us that prefer more natural animals i.e. locality or just untainted subspecies regardless of locale. Ive never heard a hybrid guy complain that my "locale snakes" genetics got into his hybrid projects and he has wasted tons of money ??? Anybody have that happen? Fact is you cant keep careful enough records and these guys who claim they do may in fact do so but are they willing to keeep records for other less honorable or less intelligent folks they sometimes sell to? I scrutinize everything now, you just have to. My advice is to some of the newer guys is be suspicious right off the bat then research everything you about the person his stock etc... ask tons of questions and if you dont get the right answers move on.

Keith
-----

I'm with you! I think natural history is an integral aspect of our hobby, and this is lost with the loss of bloodlines.
-Cole

Actually, when you put a snake in a sweaterbox, the natural history for that animal is gone, because sweaterbox snakes do not behave the exact same as wild snakes (they can't, their home is 22" x 14" x 6" deep and made of plastic.)

But I know what you mean. For a locality snake, you can go to that locality, and there is a natural history going on there. Man-made crosses don't really have that.

Wow...

Disscussion is a wonderful tool, arguement is the death of reasonable disscussion. I simply asked a question. I have zero impulse issues, and have offered zero whining. I asked a question. A question validated by the fact that very few people I find anymore can answer simple questions, like where their snake is from? I do not mean just locality either. I asked someone where do sinaloans come from, their answer, I don't know. They didn't even know where the subspecies was from. I think that you missed the point of my query Mr. D. Those of you who wish to pursue ornamental display pieces will do so, and need not my or anyone elses permission to do so. I also want new comers to this hobby to understand how muddled some of the genetics are, and how hard it is to find pure lines of anything. As Scott pointed out with obvious stuarti blood in the amel honduran lines out there. I do not even believe that all the muddled genetics are intentionally done. I believe that many just do not know what they have...abnorma being sold as stuarti not long ago come to mind.....
The bottom line is simple, without locality you would not have the ability to create muddled genetics, for the locality is the base you work from. I think people should know where the animals they keep come from, should know why they are what they are (locality, scale counts, etc..) and some work should be spent in all our interests to keep lines from some as pure as we can. We can all benefit from that. It also is important that those that produce generic animals, to represent those animals as generics...after all you will always have buyers who only want those beautifull display animals. Part of the rift between zoo's and the private sector is the fact that the private sector so confuses the bloodlines....

Guys and gals, we each do what we want, and we only answer for our own actions. Do what you find good for you and makes you happy. What makes me happy is trying to find out where all the locality guys and gals are? Oh yes, and where the heck are my dixoni?

O.K. I keep locality animals, not all of mine are tied to a locality, but most of them are. I have some locality Graybands (Alterna). And alot of Pale Milksnakes (L.t. Multistrata), Rubber boas (C.b.bottae), Bull snakes (P.c. sayi), Hognose (H.n. nasicus).
I keep Hondurans also and would love to have locality Hondos but to tell you the truth I never hear locality mentioned on Hondurans. But love the Honduran still. If I lived in Honduras I'm sure I'd have locality animals but F1s will have to do for now.

Most of my locality stock is from Montana, not all but most.

I find locality animals very interesting, just how an animals temperment from one area to another area can be so much diffrent. I have seen Multistrata in one area act docile and melo when caught, and Multistrata in another site 80 miles away act whippy and wild. And how about the color diffrences form one locality to another. Locality is important it makes are hobby more pertinent.
The best part about locality is going to that locality and looking for the given animal in that locality. It can be hard work but thats the fun of it.
Thanks,
-Dell

(i'm NOT "terryd", in case that helps avoid confusion--I'm not talking to myself here!)

dell,

i agree with you on the hondos. Getting locality specimens is unlikely at best. Even when i imported a wild-caught anerythristic this year from Honduras, I was unable to get locality data--a collector had brought it to the Honduran dealer who kindly provided it to me.

My "other" snake is the arizona mountain king--with them, as with the Hondos, I'm specializing in genetic color varieties. Locality data has not been available on most of the morphs, but i do know where the patriarch of my hypoerythristic pyro (pictured here with a normal wild-type for comparison purposes) project was captured. And at least with the pyros i can go to AZ and try to collect a wild specimen of known locality, to intro to my breeding projects. Those trips have been unsuccessful for me so far, but the pleasure of visiting the habitat still makes the trips worthwhile.

terry dunham
albino tricolors

>>O.K. I keep locality animals, not all of mine are tied to a locality, but most of them are. I have some locality Graybands (Alterna). And alot of Pale Milksnakes (L.t. Multistrata), Rubber boas (C.b.bottae), Bull snakes (P.c. sayi), Hognose (H.n. nasicus).
>>I keep Hondurans also and would love to have locality Hondos but to tell you the truth I never hear locality mentioned on Hondurans. But love the Honduran still. If I lived in Honduras I'm sure I'd have locality animals but F1s will have to do for now.
>>
>>Most of my locality stock is from Montana, not all but most.
>>
>>I find locality animals very interesting, just how an animals temperment from one area to another area can be so much diffrent. I have seen Multistrata in one area act docile and melo when caught, and Multistrata in another site 80 miles away act whippy and wild. And how about the color diffrences form one locality to another. Locality is important it makes are hobby more pertinent.
>>The best part about locality is going to that locality and looking for the given animal in that locality. It can be hard work but thats the fun of it.
>>Thanks,
>>-Dell

"Locality is important it makes are hobby more pertinent."

Point of fact the above is simply an opinion. I too use locality info in putting my collection together but if by being more pertinent you mean doing the hard work and collecting a wild locality specimen and removing it from the wild when there are other captive-bred aimals to be had I have to wonder.

I thought the whole point of this captive breeding thing was to reduce collecting preasure. I know its not the point for most locality enthusiests but the trend sure seems to encourage the collection of more animals. KEEPING locality has nothing to do with knowing natural history or spending any time in the field locating and observing wild herps.

This is just my opinion but I think its pertinent to largely contend oneself with what is available and leave wild populations alone whenever possible.

Look I'm not a locality nut or an anti-locality nut. I keep a small collection of 24 animals which consists of 5 forms, 2 of which are locality, 2 of which are morphs, the last being generic because no reliable "data" exists for thayeri though I was recently able to aquire an F1 pair.

I have at least 2.2 of every species with specimens coming from as many as 4 diverse bloodlines so that, should I produce them, I can offer unrelated pairs even if the growing number of locality nuts care more about some overblown sence of purity than about about well bred animals or inbreeding depression. I know a smattering about these animals natural history. Generally I consider myself an ongoing student of the subject. What I don't concider myself is an expert or delude myself into believing that my animals are representative of wild populations after generations of selective breeding. Oh and I am one of the old guys and I don't ever remember locality meaning what it does these days.

Sorry if I missed your point but beyond whining it wasn't well made. If its that this hobby has people who're only in it for the buck and know or care nothing about natural history then we are in agreement. If its that you miss the guys who would have us divide captive stocks into line bred dead end projects based on ill defined localities that represent mear fractions of wild populations we aren't.

Holy moly Tony D. it sounds like you need to take the chip off your shoulder and go out and hunt for snakes in a good locality to cool off.
I didn't read any whining from RC. I just read his question, where are the locality nuts and what does locality mean these days? Just a question for discussion.
I have to disagree w/ you about the "line bred dead end projects, and the ill defined localities." If done right a locality project can go on indefinitly w/ new bloodlines added by new wc animals or friends unrelated stock.

I also agree and disagree w/ Jeff Shcofield. Mostly I agree w/ him. I agree it can be easy to buy a project, even a locality project to some degree. But the learning curve is still there, you have to still do the work. And field hunting is always going to be hard work. To hard for most people.
I could go on about locality field hunting and projects but don't have the time right now. Maybe later.

Finally, in my own opinon I belive it's a shame to mash genes togeather (corn/king x milk). I would like to hear a breeder tell us why he needs to do this. Other then because I can, and no one can stop me. I know that already!
Maybe I could learn another prospective if some one could tell me a good reason for it. I'm not trying to be rude here, I'll be as open to new ideas as I can be, I just don't hear them.
Anyway those are my thoughts, thanks.
Dell D.

keep the genetics stong in states that no longer allow collection of live animals? Are there enough specimens of each locality available that interbreeding isn't a problem?

I'm not a breeder, I'm just curious because you run into this discussion with just about every species, and this is the first time I've seen an actual hybrid discussion without all the flaming...

Though some may consider me "burned out", as a breeder who has seen both sides there are several things to consider. To properly care for these types of animals requires constant effort. Most of the younger guys into this now and even several older ones realize this isnt the most popular hobby for the fairer sex.....The guys that are successful in breeding long term have sedentary lifestyles. I am sure there are more than a few like me(especially locality nuts)that have had life changing events in the past 10-15 years and have been redirected. Carl,Steve,Joey,Damon,Bob and Walt have all left the hobby after being true locality coastal plains milk nuts. The problem is that together we generated enough momentum to feed off each other in bad times. But marriages,divorces,money, drugs, and VISA problems have caused us all to grow up.
Worse than that, this medium levels the access so the most experienced is even with the least. Its now more important to know how to set up a website and take and edit digital pictures than it is to differentiate scale counts or ID subspecies correctly. Anyone questioning this needs only to check how badly I have been ripped apart on the BOI,lol. My red milks werent red enough,I dont take many pics and my packages are ugly.
I do appreciate locality of some specimens, primarily the ones I have tried to capture myself in the field.So I truely know the rarity and the "value"to me. But I can say without question that fewer people are in the field looking for specimens today because it costs less to buy them online than the cost of GAS to go hunting....Popular opinion has always been against WC snakes to begin with, which causes more bias.I have ALWAYS insisted that collecting new specimens is needed to outcross bloodlines. You will also notice that by the time a "locality"snake is cb to F3 it barely resembles that original WC animal. High fat diets,deparasitation,and selective breeding has done to these "locality" snakes what growth hormones has done to the breast tissue of teenage girls....you wont see too many complaints about this though.
Hey, it is real hard for some of us to give it up too. We wont ever get to look forward to lists coming in the mail again.We wont have to try and describe a milk using band depth,color,head shape etc..over the phone. All of the milks have now been found,bred,rebred,outcrossed,inbred and hybridized to homogenize everything for everyone. I think most will agree that one of the reasons we got into this in the beginning was that it was different,difficult and had a steep learning curve. That isnt how it is anymore,anyone with enough $$ can buy anything and have it tomorrow. It is a "what have you done for me lately" community with little knowledge or respect for those who have paved the way.
OK, off my soap box too....Thanks,Jeff

Hey Jeff
We are in a time where poularity on the forums is equal to how many neato pics one has of snakes they bought from someone else. Not that pics are bad! Not that buying snakes from someone else is bad either! I do that. But quality information about actual snakes, habitat, behavior, etc is a good thing, and that seems to be held in less regard sometimes.

Feel free to offer interesting info about milks.. milks in the field, behavior, etc. I'll read and learn, and so will others here.

>>Isn't sad that hardly anyone knows the original locality of the bloodlines anymore? Realistically less than 10% of anybody has animals that are not generic...let alone muddled crossbred animals.....Where are the locality nuts? Have we all died?
>> Bloodlines are important, trying to keep them pure is truly important, and unfortunately the "morph" market and its financial drive has diluted the desire for pure known animals.

I just read this string, I find the subject very interesting, but it left me with a question. How do you know the locality of South of the Border L.t. ssp? There were some imports of “L.t. hondurensis” last year but how do you know that is where they came from or what they are? Native collectors could have brought them from a variety of areas to be exported from a Honduran exporter. The same is true for any L.t. spp that is being or has been exported from Central America. I am willing to bet, that if you could get 100 each of the following: L. t. abnormal, blanchari, gaigeae (young ones), hondurensis, oligozona, polyzona, and stuarti; randomly collected and mixed them all together, not even the brightest minds could sort them all out. I’m sure some snakes from each group could be sorted, but not all. I seriously doubt anyone could end up with the original groups of animals sorted back out. There are far too many overlapping characteristics from this group to pin down a ssp much less a locality, virtually all the scale counts have an overlap. Even if the stock can be traced back to an original import 30 years ago, can the locality be certain (maybe it can), or just where the original wild caughts were exported from?

I do not advocate mixing ssp of anything, I breed Rosies; they need to be locality down the rock pile. However, I think a “best guess” is the most you could hope for as to locality for many Milks. Of course, there is no excuse for the Milks collected in the USA; they can easily be bred locality pure. For the rest, can you be sure? The “Applegate striped/splotched Sinaloans” are supposed to have originated from Sinaloan stock, but all my hets key out as Nelsoni (15 to 16 red bands) and my Albino Nelsoni, that can be traced back to Bob Applegate nelsoni have a few offspring that fall into Sinaloan range or have higher counts than the published data for nelsoni (12 to 21 red bands).

So I am back to my original question, how do you know?

The short answer is you don't. All you can do is key the animal out and go from there. if that isn't good enough well I guess you just don't do them. I can easily aviod the southern milks but thayeri is another thing. There was a nice discussion on this in the mexicana forum a few weeks ago. SOME there obviously have the need to "know" or believe theirs are pure but I can contend myself with well keyed out specimens.

Interestingly I've been getting into rosies lately and the locality down tot he rock pile thing to me is a bit nutty. Not sure at all how one can keep such projects "pure" for any real length of time without significant inbreeding. I've put together 2.3 San Felipes from differnet breeders and an content knowing they are all from the same general population AND manefest charactoristics typically associated with that pop. It'll be interesting to see how diverse the neonates are after mixing up the breeder lines a bit. I got some very interesting results crossing coastal plains milk localities.