# Locality / Purity. Why Does It Matter?



## Sdaji (Aug 20, 2008)

I've spent most of my time as a reptile keeper being passionate about locality purity, however, I have no idea why I care. I used to like the idea of having an animal which was representative of what you might find in the wild. Something which looked and behaved like a wild animal, a piece of nature I could enjoy and learn from. The ideals of the reptile community have changed since then, and I've changed with it to some extent. It is not a small group of keen reptile enthusiats any more, it's a money-driven industry fueled by people wanting to own reptiles as 'pets'.

Even the locality freaks want abino this, axanthic that, high yellow the other, melanistic something else and triple-blizard-snow-spotted dreamiscle-orange-blazed tornado-swirly nuclear-devastation-red that thing. We want good feeders, good handlers, we don't want something which is like what we find in the wild.

If some kid unexpectedly hatched 12 'pet shop Antaresia' and three of them happened to be Melanistic, the locality origin of the animals would make people no less keen to thrust their dollar-filled fists in the direction of that lucky kid and the snakes would go on to be bred like mad. If those same snakes happened to be locality pure, people would want them to stay locality pure. Why is it so? I would be far more attracted to them if they were pure, but I am the first to admit that their market value and general appeal would be virtually no different.

My appreciation for morphs came when the masses of pet-style keepers flooded our ranks. Poaching is a huge issue presently, but when you're only interested in something if it's homozygous for three mutations, poaching won't matter any more. I now embrace and enjoy the artificial appearance of these animals, but for reasons I have not identified and can't understand, I still have a fondness for locality purety.

So, does anyone have an explanation? Is it nothing more than sentimentality? For many reasons our animals are unsuitable for release into the wild, so don't bother with that one. With Antaresia you'll generally produce the best-looking babies by keeping things pure (crossing a patternless Children's with a high-contrast Stimson's, or Blonde Mac is going to produce crap babies), but this isn't always the case with everything, particularly Carpets, which will probably always be the main species of focus (I'm so glad I don't like them! I won't get so upset to see their gene pools slowly mixed into one big soup :lol: ).

All I can think of it that it's a game. It's cool to have pure animals because we say it is. That's enough for me, but I'd love to know if anyone has a better reason. I'd also like to know if anyone has a moral reason which could be used against those who would like to cross.

There are potentially welfare issues regarding 'hard' hybridising such as between Morelia, Liasis and Aspidites, but that's a different concern, so if you'd like to discuss that, or the legalities, please start your own thread. I'm interested in seeing arguments for (or against if you have them) keeping things pure where there are no health issues involved (Carpets being an obvious example, Antaresia being another).


----------



## JungleRob (Aug 20, 2008)

Sdaji, I think you answered your own question in your third last paragraph. I for one appreciate the different morphs of carpets available to us as well as the locality pure animals.
The flavour of the month in a decade or so may very well be locality pure animals, because everything else will have been so inbred with this and that we could sit with problems unimaginable, problems relating to feeding, growth, mating, etc. etc. Who knows, only time will tell.


----------



## Khagan (Aug 20, 2008)

I think it's kinda comparable to cars, you know some people like to keep them classic original (Pure locality) and some people like to customise (Morph etc).

It also seems like a game of who can top each other with the best looking animals, everyone wants something that is better looking or different than the last persons. Unless you're really passionate about a particular species it kinda gets the same old seeing it over and over.


----------



## caustichumor (Aug 20, 2008)

6 degrees of seperation, Say you Sold a locality pure animal 12 years ago, there could now literally be dozens of decendant breeding animals,How many of those animals are still paired with a locality specific mate? Each person who puts two sexual aged animals together does so for themselves, their own ideological ethics dictate what comes out the back end. 
I would always prefer to buy a locality known animal over an unknown source, But as the years of taking from the wild get behind us there will always be animals whose history and bloodlines get lost in the pet trade. (it kind of makes you want to have petshop sold animals desexed.....)


----------



## PilbaraPythons (Aug 20, 2008)

Sentimentality perhaps sums it up, and this is because I think the majority of Austrian people are generally very proud of all Australia’s wildlife just the way it is and if seeing them in captivity or otherwise, most would appreciate them somewhat representing what they should naturally look like. 
Do many reptile purists compromise their own values by the temptation or self indulgence of non pure interesting morphs or mutations? Perhaps, but in my opinion it is at least a lot more positive to have this care in the first place rather than a blatant disregard to what we do with our wildlife.


----------



## Sdaji (Aug 20, 2008)

JungleRob: I don't expect we'll ever be faced with serious inbreeding issues with our snakes, and lines kept locality pure will become as inbred as anything else anyway. I agree, it seems pure sentimentality.

Khagan: I agree with you too, there are some who just want something 'classic' and some who want something fancy. I see more and more that people are wanting 'fancy' over 'classic'.

Dave: How many people these days do you think would prefer a 'typical' wild animal vs an unusually beautiful one? I'm sure when you're out collecting you'll try to obtain the most beautiful animals you can rather than the most typical ones (and hey, why wouldn't you?). You say it's more positive to keen them pure and to cross them is to blatantly disregard the wellbeing of the wildlife, but why? My gut feeling is to agree with you, I 'feel' the same way, but I can't understand it or put a decent argument forward, so I'm finding myself unable to justify encouraging anyone to share my philosophy. All I can do is say "I like things pure, I hope you do too". If this is all I have, I don't seem to have a leg to stand on if I tell someone they shouldn't cross things.

If sentimentality is all it is, it's still a perfectly valid persuit (just like wanting as much yellow as possible in your Jungles or as little melanin as possible in your whatever). Some of us will continue, but I can't see any ethical platform to stand on, or justification for telling anyone else what they should do, any more than I can tell someone they are 'wrong' for wanting a dull snake; it's just a personal preference.


----------



## PeeGee (Aug 20, 2008)

after living here in Australia now for almost 9 years, I don't understand why people can't just be happy with the pure breds. I'm Dutch originally, and keep telling everyone who wants to hear it, how lucky they are to be born in such a country as Australia. It's wildlife is gorgeous the way it is, so I personally don't see the point in cross breeding. I hope I made sense, English is not my first language, so if I read this thread in a wrong way, or my post doesn't make any sense at all, I apologize..


----------



## JungleRob (Aug 20, 2008)

Sdaji said:


> JungleRob: I don't expect we'll ever be faced with serious inbreeding issues with our snakes, and lines kept locality pure will become as inbred as anything else anyway. I agree, it seems pure sentimentality.
> 
> Agree with you 100%, what I mean is the cross-breeding of species to get different looking animals, as opposed to inbreeding of like species, ending up with a soup like gene pool of carpets.


----------



## wokka (Aug 20, 2008)

Why do we have flat sceened teles or name brand jeans.Because we are told they are better? We get sick of the old ones and progess says we have to embrace change.Why do sheep follow one another? I think its easier thanblazing your own path.


----------



## Sel (Aug 20, 2008)

Interesting topic!

I guess im one of those people who would prefer "pure". But, i really dont have a decent explanation for it!
I think pure breds are special, whether its a snake or a dog or a cat...when they are mixed with something else, they kind of lose that specialness. (hope that makes sense! and this is all MY opinion )

But, its up to the person and its all in the mind really. Its the thought and *knowing* that you have something pure. Like when you buy jewellrey, its just not the same if it isnt "real" gold or "real" silver. But then there are people that love the costume jewellrey , because its cheaper and more colourful.
People think the more expensive things are better , but its not always the case!

I hope i made some kind of sense lol


----------



## TrueBlue (Aug 20, 2008)

Hmmm interesting thread sdaji.
I cant really explain my,(dare i say), devotion, to locality specific animals except that i just like naturally occurring forms. IMO there are as many naturally occouring locale specific morphs out there that are as, or even better looking, than any crosses. Take jungles for example,im sure Dave will agree with me here as hes seen more wild jungles than most people would ever likely see in a life time. Ive seen some absolute screemers crossing roads, better than 90% of the jungles we have in captivity that are line bred for certain traits.
Nature is a beautiful and amazing thing, we can try and manipulate it all we want to improve it in our eyes, but then mother nature will throw something back at us and blow us out of the water, no matter how much effort we put in to manipulating her.


----------



## Sdaji (Aug 20, 2008)

I think that's a great comparison! Real vs synthetic jewels. Gold plated steel or solid gold. There's no tangible difference, and there's no real justification for saying that there is any actual value in having 'real' jewelry. I don't wear jewelry, but I fully appreciate where you're coming from, and if I was to wear it I'd only want the genuine article, even though I'd be unable to understand why. There would just be something satisfying about thinking about the diamond being formed by natural distilation processes, followed by extreme pressure, then sitting around for millions of years, rather than having been made by some guy out of lump of carbon in a laboratory last week (although there's something fun about that too I suppose).

A solid gold ring is no 'better' than a gold-plated steel one. Unless you put it on precision scales you can't even tell the difference, but somehow one is so much better.

It's a bit like that 10c coin you saved as a souvenier because it was the change from the first time you bought your spouse a drink. It's not worth anything, it looks the same as every other 10c coin, but in its own way it's priceless.

I'm sure many people feel exactly the same way and are very passionate about it, but is there anything else? Can anyone come up with an ethical issue or an argument to say that people should not make 'soft' crosses? If anyone wanted to tell me that my reasons were stupid all I could do would be shrug my shoulders, agree with them and wish them well.

You might say that hybridisers will turn things to soup and prevent us from having our beloved pure animals, but then again, the counter argument is robbing them of their ability to do what they want, and I can't find a way to justify discouraging them. This argument is especially weak when you consider that unless we keep very careful track of our lines, we won't 'know' that they're pure anyway, and the hybrids will only affect the lines we'd be unsure about anyway.

I'm having quite the ethical crisis! :lol:

Rob: I agree, I think pure animals almost always look better than crosses (other than a very small number of 'extreme' crosses, which are another kettle of fish). Beauty is in the eye of the beholder though. Breeding Diamonds with Jungles to get more yellow into the lines is one case where people would generally agree that some nice snakes can be made which are nicer than the parents, but you may be right when you say the very, very best Jungles are pure. I still can't put that into an ethical "right or wrong" context though.


----------



## Boney (Aug 20, 2008)

i like to keep known local animals ,and like sdaji could not work out why i did care about it so much . now i think i know . i just like to collect different ones . you know , lee creek, flinders, broome and so on . i just like that sort of thing . so i would like to think there is going to be known local stuff still out there in years to come. but like i said i like to collect different stuff so i want best of both worlds i want to chase colour and pattern also if that means crossing say jungle with darwin so be it eg only . but tell it how it is . what this does to the hobby who knows .:? this is a shallow point of view i know but its how i feel .i think anyway?


----------



## cracksinthepitch (Aug 20, 2008)

Man thats some headache your giving yourself sdaji. I dont think there is a simple explanantion for it. i dont think you can compare it to other physical things like cars ( not having a crack) because you dont ask where the car was put together before purchase.
My way of looking at it is probably very simplistic and only from a buyers perspective, but i like to have a more in depth description of my snake.ie an Uluru locale Woma Python rather than a woma python. its no better or different to me really but i like to have that extra info and i suppose it personalizes the snake for me. 
So my answer would be that its more personal to have a more specific locale of snake. Man now ive given myself a headache..:?


----------



## Sdaji (Aug 20, 2008)

cracks: The analogy with the cars is that some people want a classic thing (eg restoring an old vintage vehicle true to its original state) or just having the most suped up hotrod with every modification imaginable. It's being 'true' to something (an original design - nature's or the car designer) rather than tinkering with it yourself to make it 'better'. Analogies usually aren't perfect, they just provide a comparison to demonstrate a point, so of course you'll be able to pick holes in it. Analogies are not supposed to be robust or used in extrapolations.

Once again, you've given a sentimental reason for liking locality. We are all familiar with this sentiment and it doesn't need to be looked at more. I'm just trying to identify a tangible way to say that it actually is a fundamentally beneficial thing (rather than just a preference) or that crossing animals is bad. I'm coming up with a blank and this thread was made to see if that blank could be filled, which it seems it can't.


----------



## caustichumor (Aug 20, 2008)

I see their being a great divide with reptile owners soon, There will be those who keep the locality pure animals (to the best of their knowledge) those that keep sub-specific pure animals (to the best of their knowledge) and those with the "You Have Sinned Against Nature" (but what a pretty snake group). I think there is no way to stop it from happening, However the keepers who have documented the bloodlines of their animals will be able to provide "papers" to go with their hatchlings...


----------



## Simple (Aug 20, 2008)

Even with so called locality specific animals how is this proved. Unless you personally took it form the wild you are still putting alot trust in the person who sold it.


----------



## Boney (Aug 20, 2008)

locality pure is for the sentimentals . colour and pattern will be the way of the future if you want a purebreed all you got to do is standardise mongrels making them a breed which will make them pure again!


----------



## Sdaji (Aug 20, 2008)

caustic: yes yes, of course, we've all known that for years now, I'm just trying to find a reason for it to matter. We won't be keeping pure lines genetically similar to their wild relatives even if we try (unless we establish massive populations and breed _extremely_ carefully, being careful to maintain 'bad' traits such as preference for skinks as food, etc).

Simple: You're quite right, and a great deal of the 'pure' animals are not actually pure at all. Overseas it is even worse, and in all cases the dishonesty is increasing, as is the number of people who genuinely believe their animals are pure, when in fact they're not. My very first snake was purchased as pure from one of the country's most well respected breeders. I can see now that that snake is certainly not pure! If it had looked pure (as many hybrids do) I might still assume it was. I now know far more than I did then and have tracked down animals I know for sure are locality pure, that's lovely, I adore them, but it's a different topic.

I'm after an answer to why (other than novelty) purity matters. I don't think anyone will be able to provide one.


----------



## zobo (Aug 20, 2008)

Simple said:


> Even with so called locality specific animals how is this proved. Unless you personally took it form the wild you are still putting alot trust in the person who sold it.



I agree to a degree.
How on earth do you know what locale animals are? unless they are heavily linebred (inbred) over many decades from original wild stock back when it was the done thing (1960-1970's??) OR they have been illegally caught?
As someone else stated, even if you buy locale animals, after generations of outcrossing it is going to be very very hard to get locale animals in captivity that are not in-bred. 
I think 'pure' animals are the go and don't like hybrids, but I can never understand this locale obsession, as long as you breed the same species together I am happy!
jas


----------



## Sdaji (Aug 20, 2008)

zobo said:


> I think 'pure' animals are the go and don't like hybrids, but I can never understand this locale obsession, as long as you breed the same species together I am happy!
> jas



Why species? What happens when Children's Pythons get split up? What if they are redefined as subspecies? Does the last 20 years suddenly become okay? What if the Carpets are split into eight different species? Does that mean the last 20 years suddenly becomes bad? Does it depend on which book you read when deciding whether or not it's ethical/right/acceptable to breed a bredli with a Coastal?

Not at all having a go at you, I just find peoples' thoughts on the issue quite interesting and want to throw the questions up for discussion.


----------



## imported_Varanus (Aug 20, 2008)

Hey John,

Dare I say it; perhaps purity dosen't matter in the great scheme of things!

Once animals are taken out of their natural environments and second/ third generations are offered for sale, they cease to become part of the ecosystem anyway. They can never be returned (because they eat lab rats instead of skinks,etc), so their whole reason for existance is to fulfill the expectations of their "creators" (man playing God).Cheers,

I.V.


----------



## $NaKe PiMp (Aug 20, 2008)

Simple said:


> Even with so called locality specific animals how is this proved. Unless you personally took it form the wild you are still putting alot trust in the person who sold it.


 

this is very true,
unless taken from wild,it is impossible to say with certainty,as locale colour variation can be variable


----------



## caustichumor (Aug 20, 2008)

Originally all pythons where taken from the wild.. They can be traced with bloodlines (as humans do with family trees) I think the old post a pic on a forum and play guess the locality has been proven to not be at all reliable....
Using Coastal carpets as an example (why not that is the most contentious species) You can still get a fairly broad range of local specific sub-species. Brisbane, Mackay, Townsville, and proserpine are some that come to mind. There are many Keepers who have maintained collections for many decades, And their original animals can be traced to a specific location in the bush, They where taken from the wild and they are bred from that stock. So yes they did pull them out of the bush.


----------



## cris (Aug 20, 2008)

Sdaji said:


> I'm coming up with a blank and this thread was made to see if that blank could be filled, which it seems it can't.





Sdaji said:


> This argument is especially weak when you consider that unless we keep very careful track of our lines, we won't 'know' that they're pure anyway, and the hybrids will only affect the lines we'd be unsure about anyway.



This about sums up how i have seen the issue, it isnt really a problem. Locality specific animals have greater natural heritage value, most ppl dont really care about this side of things, to be honest i dont care about it with most of my animals. It is something i do value though, especially where they are under pressure in the wild, eg. Darwin yellow spotted monitors.
I dont think an animal being locality specific has any influence on its 'pet' value. If someone made some sort of tegu hybrid in a test tube that was smarter than a dog and could fetch beer i would defintaly want one, i still wouldnt value it in the same way as my darwin _V.panoptes_, but yeah how awesome would it be to have a beer fetching tegu.

Reptiles will become domesticated regardless of whether ppl like it or not, crossing species or selecting traits that wouldnt be naturally selected can make better domestic pets. 

As you have mentioned in previous threads there are definate advantages to having animals that are differant to wild type in the pet trade.


----------



## Australis (Aug 20, 2008)

For my own taste, i would actually get more satisfaction out of keeping a locality known specimen 
that wasn't very aesthetically pleasing over a more aesthetically pleasing specimen with no known
locality information, this kind of information is extremely interesting to me, so adds to the overall 
value of the animal in my eyes... and at the other end of the "scale" a hybrid (in the hobby terms)
would hold absolutely no value or interest for me to keep.

I would consider a "collection" of locality specific animals far more valuable (not in dollar terms) 
and impressive in general over more "flashy animals" with no real background info to go with
them, yet some of the nicest animals ive ever seen have been locality specific anyways.

I guess besides ones personal taste the biggest advantage in keeping locality specific
specimens is the safety in being unlikely to be affected by taxonomic changes/trends and
the peace of mind that offers.

I'm not sure i can truly answer Sdaji's question myself but in my experience keepers who ive
spoken with that desire locality specific animals tend to share other common interests such as 
field herping which probably helps to develop appreciation for locality forms.









.


----------



## Jonno from ERD (Aug 20, 2008)

I think you'll find two very distinct similarities in most cases...

Those who are pro-locality information have an interest in wild reptiles, field trips etc.

Those who are pro-hybridisation wouldn't be able to ID the skink in their backyard if their life depended on it...


----------



## Sdaji (Aug 20, 2008)

:lol: I don't think it's possible for an APS thread to stay on topic  Oh well, it seems I have my answer anyway.

Interesting observation about the correlation. Now that you mention it, I can see it. It shows what side of reptiles people find interesting. I think there are some exceptions and some who fit into both categories, but as a general rule I think you're right.

Since you've never been out in the field (I bet you think Molochs are found in trees :roll: ) I suppose you're admitting to loving hybrids, Jonno!


----------



## BrownHash (Aug 20, 2008)

I think sentimental values are probably one of the main reasons people like the local pure animals. Also, local pure animals are what defines the animal. When you talk about a diamand python or a coastal you are generally talking about the species of snake before herpetoculture got a hold of it and changed it into something different. Is a 5th generation albino coastal still a coastal? Genetics will say it is, but its also a creation of mankind. 

Another explaination maybe related to the way in which people put importance on ancestory. People tend to put a lot of importance on wheather their family has this or that bloodline. It may be that we also transfer this importance over to the animals we keep. If you look at dog breeding its the same. A pedegre dog is more popular than a cross bred mongrel?

People will always seek out rarer traits and put greater importance on them. Imagine if all Olive pythons where pure white (other than them not being called 'Olive' pythons), and then someone had a hatchy come out that beautiful olive colour. People would go nuts for it, and it would be bred for that characteristic because its unusual, like albinos are today.

I think this is a great topic Sdaji, its given us all something to think about. I definately know which type of snake I prefer.


----------



## cris (Aug 20, 2008)

Jonno from ERD said:


> I think you'll find two very distinct similarities in most cases...
> 
> Those who are pro-locality information have an interest in wild reptiles, field trips etc.
> 
> Those who are pro-hybridisation wouldn't be able to ID the skink in their backyard if their life depended on it...



or put more simply ppl with an interest herptology and those that just keep them as pets. Although many are a bit of both. I for example would be happy to keep exotic domestic animals (eg. a rat, mouse, bbq chicken or mythical beer fetching tegu hybrid) but also have an interest in real natural animals.


----------



## gold&black... (Aug 21, 2008)

Lol Sdaji, let me start by thanking u for starting this thread.... Finally a sensible conversation without ten year olds having a go at people for liking or disliking hybrids.... Like I mentioned earlier in one of my posts, what really is happening here is a bunch of old timers who know the market(profits), conditioning the noob's about what to to like and what not to like....Take my word, the future is a good looking snake rather than a locality specific ordinary snake........ Imagen, there was a guy on here (something turtle) who had a go at me for saying that line breeding makes snakes look better).. I find it funny that none of them can explain why they really like locality specific animals and can only speak of sentimental values... All of us in this reptile hobby know better than believe the breeder and we also know that not everything we get is always pure..... Infact, from what I understand, most Palmerston jungles have already been mixed with diamonds and most albinos have no locality(which no one really cares about). Any way, would really like to see where this conversation ends....... cheers

Chetan. 
(P.S. Love hybrids).....


----------



## DDALDD (Aug 23, 2008)

As a noob, this thread is very interesting. Informative and educational.


----------



## GrumpyTheSnake (Aug 23, 2008)

Fantastic thread. It's nice to finally see a "discussion" rather than a mud slinging match.

I think there is a place for both. I have bought Jungles, BHPs, Bredli, Water Pythons, Darwins and Coastals for their locale and bloodline. I have these in my collection, because I love the colours, the markings, the temperament to name a few. 

I don't think there really is an answer for you Sdaji. Maybe the purists would like to see if they can get the cleanest marking, or strongest colour from their animals, without dipping into a brighter looking animal to do so. To get that "special something" from pure lines with no additives. ( I hope that made sense)

I have also bought straight out crossed animals. Morelia x morelia sub species. I think they are stunning to look at. I bought them as such, and if I were to sell them, they would be sold as such. I even have them on my license as a cross. For those that like to buy a "pet", they are looking for something that looks pretty, or has that "wow" factor. 

I think this is maybe one reason for the uproar that has occurred in the past when it comes to the age old pure vs cross debate. Way too often people have crossed their animals, and then sold the "normal" looking ones as a pure. If this were to happen too often, then the pure lines do get infiltrated by the crosses and the bloodlines tainted. 

I like to go herping with my husband and my kids. We teach them the differences between the skinks we find, and lizards and dragons. We teach them all we can about the snakes they see in the wild, and compare them to our captive breed snakes. So to say that anyone who keeps crosses has no idea, is just out and out wrong.


----------



## Nagraj (Aug 23, 2008)

Sdaji said:


> Is it nothing more than sentimentality?



You state that as if it is of no consequence but sentimentality can be a very expensive commodity. 





Sdaji said:


> For many reasons our animals are unsuitable for release into the wild



I don't agree with that, although it has no bearing on why I like pure lines.
The particular animals we have in captivity may not be suitable for direct release but offspring could be raised in environments analogous to 'the wild' which would make them suitable should the need arise.


----------



## Lozza (Aug 23, 2008)

Sdaji said:


> Simple: You're quite right, and a great deal of the 'pure' animals are not actually pure at all. Overseas it is even worse, and in all cases the dishonesty is increasing, as is the number of people who genuinely believe their animals are pure, when in fact they're not. My very first snake was purchased as pure from one of the country's most well respected breeders. I can see now that that snake is certainly not pure! If it had looked pure (as many hybrids do) I might still assume it was. I now know far more than I did then and have tracked down animals I know for sure are locality pure, that's lovely, I adore them, but it's a different topic.
> .


So true - look at how many threads there have been lately asking what people think the locality of their snake is based on a photo. Are these people then going to breed them and sell them a locale snakes based only on the opinion of a few people on the net?

Very interesting thread Sdaji!


----------



## Sdaji (Aug 23, 2008)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to belittle sentimentality. Sentimentality is the bulk of the entire reason people keep animals.

On the release issue... ***twaddle alert on! Almost everyone agrees on this issue, so unless you're wanting to re read old arguments, don't bother with the rest of this post***

Genetically the animals we keep are unsuitable for release. They're quite okay for us to keep and breed as pets, but the limited gene pool makes them less able to evolve and adapt. It's a fairly complex concept, certainly too much to explain here, but you can either trust me as a geneticist or go and do some serious research. Genetically it is arguable only appropriate to release animals into the area they came from, and our animals are not collected with release in mind. If a population of snakes in a certain location was wiped out we wouldn't want to introduce animals from far away to replace them. With very rare exception, the only two situations in which it is appropriate to release animals for conservation reasons are when a population has been exterminated and the reason for its extermination has been removed, or (extremely rarely) when an auxilliary population is to be established (such as on an island when a cause is going to wipe the population out on the mainland). Land development is sadly a one way process. We're clearing land, not returning developed land to wilderness. The only remotely likely scenario for an appropriate reptile rerelease in Australia would be after an introduced pest (such as the Cane Toad) was exterminated, and a species of reptile had gone extinct in the wild. So far the toads haven't wiped any species out, but a very small number of species just might be at risk of it Rough-scaled Pythons, Oenpelli Pythons and Pygmy Freshwater Crocodiles being possible candidates. In order to give a rerelease a chance of success, we'd have to collect at least 50 or so individuals of each species from the wild and keep as large a captive population as possible (preferably in the hundreds) until the toads were eliminated. The captive population would need to be maintained with good records and with a carefully planned breeding structure. In reality, this is extremely unlikely to happen (although it would be great). However, in those cases it actually might be important to keep them locality pure, etc etc.

There is also a quarantine issue with our captive animals.

There are many spectacular examples of failed release attempts, including issues which have come from using a limited gene pool.

It's not an issue of captive habituation, it's mainly genetics with a dash of quaratine. In reality, reptile keepers couldn't be trusted on their locality labels anyway, and the red tape involved with releasing captive animals would be crazy, let alone the fact that the need will almost certainly not come along.


----------



## Kathryn_ (Aug 24, 2008)

For me it's just about genetics, and the fact that I think humans have a responsibility to limit their intervention with other species. By taking a snake out of nature and putting it in a box in your herp room, you're doing something really abnormal to that individual animal. It's life is never going to be anything like it would have been before you, or the person who removed its parent / grand-parent from nature, intervened. But it's still just an individual animal. 

All snakes have a common genetic ancestor from which they have moved further and further over millions of years: adders and Stimson's have been separated for so long one would have the other for lunch rather than breed with it, but according to current theory on subspecies, Children's and Stimson's haven't been apart that long yet. They're moving very slowly but very steadily in that direction. One day, they'll be completely speciated and no longer able to interbreed. By cross breeding subspecies or localities, you're throwing yourself into the middle of that process, essentially looking at hundreds of thousands of years of evolution differentiating those two snakes from one another and saying, for one moment in your puny little human life, "Nah, stuff it!" 

In my opinion, it's the absolute height of arrogance for a human to think they're smart enough to improve on what nature is doing and has done, and to intervene with other animals not just at an individual level, which is questionable enough, but at a species level. Look at chihuahuas and puggs. Their ancestors would eat them for lunch, but a wolf wasn't good enough for humans, we wanted something little and profoundly stupid, and fifteen thousand years later: _voila_. As far as I'm concerned, the average solitary pugg's life with constant respiratory problems and canned food doesn't compare to that of a wolf with its pack in the wild. The wolf might not be food secure or get doggy treats when he rolls over, but damn, at least he's living a normal life. In the same way, assuming we don't cook the planet or blow ourselves to Kingdom come first, a few thousand years of selective breeding in snakes and god only knows what pointless creatures we'll produce with what defects from systemic inbreeding. It doesn't bear thinking about.


----------



## salebrosus (Aug 24, 2008)

Sdaji said:


> I think that's a great comparison! Real vs synthetic jewels. Gold plated steel or solid gold. There's no tangible difference, and there's no real justification for saying that there is any actual value in having 'real' jewelry.
> 
> A solid gold ring is no 'better' than a gold-plated steel one. Unless you put it on precision scales you can't even tell the difference, but somehow one is so much better.
> 
> Rob: I agree, I think pure animals almost always look better than crosses (other than a very small number of 'extreme' crosses, which are another kettle of fish). Beauty is in the eye of the beholder though. Breeding Diamonds with Jungles to get more yellow into the lines is one case where people would generally agree that some nice snakes can be made which are nicer than the parents, but you may be right when you say the very, very best Jungles are pure. I still can't put that into an ethical "right or wrong" context though.



LOL there is a difference with gold plated and real gold. I'm allergic to anything that is not pure gold, i get rashes from gold plated metals as oppose to pure gold. 

I like my locale specific animals but i can safely say there are some stunners out in the wild. A particular road i drive down at night not far from where i live is one fine example - i have pulled a number of striped hypo carpets off the road. Some would look at these animals and say that they had to be captive bred to get markings and colours like that, but no - its all from mother nature. I like locale specific animals probably for sentimental reasons. There are some morphs that i do like the look of, but i certainly wont pay some of the ridiculous $$$ being asked for them. 

Just my 2 bobs worth.

Simone.


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 24, 2008)

great subject sdaji

In my own opinion.

Reptiles that naturaly have evolved over the millions of years deserve the respect and to keep there origonal locality and genus of that species why would anyone want to put that in danger by cross breeding sub species for money which then brings demand for more. There should be some type of qauntine laws in regards to cross breeding our native species to pretect our natural fauna and there locality, most would probably know that captive snakes arnt suitable to be released into the wild for this matter , and im sure if a >X< "gravid" female was to be releaed or escape in there right enviroment with the right gene then leads to a possibilty for a mutation of a whole species purity. let mother nature do it, its not our role.
Just my opionion
i love the natural and locality form
cheers steve


----------



## nikay11 (Aug 24, 2008)

They do deserve the respect to keep their localities in the wild they deserve to live without us causing them to go to extinction, but where is the respect when we took them out of the wild to become pets, to be domesticated.(as much as you can for a snake...) Since they already have a gene pool in captive care why should it matter if they are crossed, They are never meant to go back to the wild. Just worry about preserving the wild localities not the captive ones. If you do want to preserve the localties that id say good for you, good for staying honest and keeping good track of them. If you want to cross nothing wrong with it just label it as it is so the purist don't get them mixed into their pure gene pool. 
food for thought,
nikki


----------



## herpkeeper (Aug 24, 2008)

i read a thread the other week from a guy in France asking people to send him pics of what wild coastal carpet forms look like ??? what does this tell you people ???


----------



## Boney (Aug 24, 2008)

herpkeeper said:


> i read a thread the other week from a guy in France asking people to send him pics of what wild coastal carpet forms look like ??? what does this tell you people ???


 
tells you that a guy in france wants to see a wild carpet form . never know he might be dissapointed!... do see your point but !


----------



## daniel1234 (Aug 24, 2008)

Interesting thread, tried replying but even I don't understand what I am saying so just some points:

I am one who doesn't really fully understand why I lean toward pure breeds but I do.
I have marveled over crosses.

Would an abundance of crosses lessen the $$$ value of pure breds or increase them (I think the former if anything)? Is this what established breeders are afraid of?

What do the people who made the rules say they made them for?

I would presume that a hatchling is wild until made tame (eg: bites and handling and would there be feeding issues if we started them on live food).

I remember a thread about a full grown snake under licence that escaped and now lives in the cavities of the house, comming out at night (don't know who feeds it or if it now finds its own). Think Dantheman started that thread about some one he knows.

Again interesting thread and congrates at getting this far guys without mud slinging


----------



## PilbaraPythons (Aug 24, 2008)

If more people got to see all the different traits often subtly unique to many areas, I believe they would appreciate the locality specific ethic (sentimentality) for themselves. Unfortunately and realistically, this remains a privilege to very few.


----------



## Sdaji (Aug 24, 2008)

Kathryn: I usually agree with you posts, but can't agree that we're arrogant if we think we can change animals for the better. Whether it's pure or a cross, we can improve snakes. You dog example is one of the best examples of how much good we can do (yes, mainly for our own purposes, but what's wrong with that?). A wolf would not make a suitable pet. It would not be fun, it would not be safe, it would try to kill its owner and anyone who went near it. We have friendly breeds, we have useful guard dogs, we have dogs which provide invaluable services on farms, invaluable services in substance detection (tracking/sniffer dogs) etc etc etc. Yes, we also have absurd little breeds which most people (including myself) can't stand, and yes, there are inbreeding issues in some cases due to people doing the wrong thing, but we can see if things are done properly, domestication is a wonderful thing.

Without domestication we couldn't be farming the animals we eat (cows, pigs, sheep being some good examples) or we'd have a much worse time of it (chickens, etc). The same functional principle applies to plants, and arguably the same ethical principle too. Without human alteration our food plant production would be about 90% less efficient (You'd be paying about 10 times as much for food, and most people on the planet would starve to death in less than a month).

There is no reasonable doubt at all that we can and do improve plants and animals.

In terms of reptiles, whether pure or crossed, we can make improvements. Yes, there some beautiful snakes in the wild, but only a fool would say that a typical wild snake is as good looking as a typical tenth generation captive snake (unless what you like is normal animals, in which case you are in a group which makes up less than 1% of reptile keepers - but yes, your views are still perfectly valid). The vast majority of people would prefer a hyperxanthic piebald albino than a drab brown animal. We'd all prefer an animal which readily eats unscented, thawed mice rather than one which is highly timid and needs to be force fed or only accepts live frogs.

What all this boils down to is that nature has created snakes which are well suited to the natural environment, not a captive environment (which as you say is nothing like the natural environment). Nature has not and will not try to make good captive snakes, but we can and do.

As for the taxonomic argument, it'd take too long to respond to! I'd be happy to do it, but it would bore and annoy everyone!

Whether or not we keep things pure, we are changing the animals to be suited to our needs, and we'd be silly not to.

salebrosus: That's odd. Unless the plating wears away you shouldn't be exposed to anything other than pure gold. Either way, it's a red herring  I bet you just say it to get your boyfriends to buy more expensive stuff! 

[email protected]: A cross escaping poses no more risk than a pure animal escaping outside its local range. That argument only works if you want everyone to only keep animals collected within around five km from where they will be housed.

herpkeeper: it tells me that he wants to see for himself what some wild animals look like. Maybe he doubts the purity of his own animals, maybe he is just curious, maybe he has no doubt at all about the purity of his animals and just want to see pictures for the enjoyment of it. Coastals vary so much, you get pretty much everything imaginable in the wild.

I find my current thoughts on this topic a little disturbing to be honest! I gut feeling is that pure snakes are highly desirable, and I will continue to keep pure lines, but I'm realising more and more that I have no solid basis for it, and no legs to stand on when telling other people they have a moral obligation to do the same. I even feel a little guilty for spending the last decade or so acting like people who didn't care about it were in some way wrong! It's bothering me to be sounding like a hybrid advocate, and I'm not for a moment trying to encourage anyone to make crosses (I can't really see much reason to do that either, and generally you'll have nicer looking snakes by keeping them pure).

I'm not sure if I've mentioned it in this thread yet, but for the record, I only have one lizard which is not locality pure and only two pythons which are not locality pure (according to the seller of my first snake, even they should be and at the time I didn't know enough to recognise what was what, but I can now clearly see that they're mongrels). I will continue to do my best to ensure that pure lines of all my pure animals continue to exist, and for a reason I can't put my finger on, I think I'll always be passionate about locality.


----------



## Sdaji (Aug 24, 2008)

PilbaraPythons said:


> If more people got to see all the different traits often subtly unique to many areas, I believe they would appreciate the locality specific ethic (sentimentality) for themselves. Unfortunately and realistically, this remains a privilege to very few.



Care to post pictures of some good examples? I won't be upset if you convert anyone to the pure side!


----------



## salebrosus (Aug 24, 2008)

salebrosus: That's odd. Unless the plating wears away you shouldn't be exposed to anything other than pure gold. Either way, it's a red herring  I bet you just say it to get your boyfriends to buy more expensive stuff! 


To be honest Sdaji, im allergic to anything that isn't pure silver. Gold plated, titanium etc and even gold i get rashes from. I can get away with surgical steel but everything else irritates my skin.


----------



## nathancl (Aug 24, 2008)

A big part of it for me is taxonomy . More and more species are being split up all the time for example, Saltuarius swaini has recently been split into 3 different species and unless you know the exact locality of your leaf tail gecko you might aswell consider your leaf tail a hybrid. 

Its the same with some of the varanids like brevicauda and scalaris aswell as many other gecko species. Once they are looked into and split up due to dna research proving they are a different species what happens then ? Unless you know the locale on your animal or can key it out to be one or the other you will probably find yourself questioning the species you keep.

Now i have written that theres the question of who cares if its a hybrid ?? so then it goes back to sentimental value, pure or non pure ? 

I dont think there is a real answer for this but i think its a great topic for discussion.


----------



## PilbaraPythons (Aug 24, 2008)

Sdaji
I can't really say that I have any particular example in photo, but I can say that I do notice colour, pattern, and scalation traits specific to many areas.
In a not so subtle example of traits with say W.A stimsons pythons, even from short distance extremes, I can easily tell by looking at the prefrontal scales of wheatbelts stimsons to know that they are genuine wheatbelt stimsons. Even their overall pattern, colour look (even if you aren’t sure what it is that tells you it looks different) that you have a wheatbelt. Now to get more subtle, in some parts of the wheatbelt area, all specimens have no single mid lateral prefrontalscale at all and this trait is very consistence ( My ideas as far as evolutionary relationship to northern populations is yet another unfinished story).
Take another example with stimsons from Pannawonica, they are commonly darker brown in body colouration and commonly thinned lined rather than displaying thick lighter markings that give the overall appearance or description of being slightly blotched
which is far more a typical trait of Port Hedland DeGrey specimens. 50kms direct east of Port Hedland they are typically of lighter colouration and display more a slightly better reddish hue. I am sure you get what I am trying to highlight.


----------



## Sdaji (Aug 24, 2008)

salebrosus said:


> salebrosus: That's odd. Unless the plating wears away you shouldn't be exposed to anything other than pure gold. Either way, it's a red herring  I bet you just say it to get your boyfriends to buy more expensive stuff!
> 
> 
> To be honest Sdaji, im allergic to anything that isn't pure silver. Gold plated, titanium etc and even gold i get rashes from. I can get away with surgical steel but everything else irritates my skin.



You're allergic to solid gold? Wow! And to think I was angry at my immune system for being allergic to Death Adder venom! :lol:

Nathan: I agree entirely. I don't personally care for taxonomic purety - it's not good enough for me. I want locality purety and will not be as satisfied with anything less. This doesn't change the question at hand: Why does it matter?

Dave: Like you, I fully appreciate things like that. I love to see a tiny little trait and be able to make some meaning of it. The question is, how do we get Joe Average to appreciate a small scale or a trivial difference in a stripe? I get very excited about the head scalation of my Water Pythons. When they hatch I closely examine each one, and often for up to a year or two after people buy them I remember the noticable uniqueness about individuals. Sometimes someone will say "Hi, Sdaji, I bought a Water Python from you 18 months ago" and I'll say something like "Yes! I remember that one! It had three post oculars on the left side and perfectly symetrical parietal scales! Lovely snake that one!" and they'll say something like "Huh? I have no idea what that meant, but I don't want to talk to you any more, I hate you :evil: ". :lol:

I love these tiny little traits, but I can't see how or why we should try to get Johnny Nobody the pet owner to care.


----------



## nathancl (Aug 24, 2008)

I have sort of got an answer. Accuracy of bookwork, say you have _varanus scalaris_ and they got split nth queensland specimens are now _varanus whatevertheyarei_ and the ones from nt are _scalaris_, when your book work comes around and you have them down as_ scalaris_ when in fact they are actually _whatevertheyarei_ what then ???? the only way to prevent that is keeping locality pure animals.

Also another point i just thought about is the animals requirements. If you have a _scalaris_ that is from the arid parts of its range and it *does not* require high humidity , you then aquire another _scalaris_ that is a nth queensland rainforest animal which *does* require high levels of humidity and you keep it in with your dry style _scalaris _and it dies due to humidity related issues. That would be your fault for not researching the requirments of that animal and although you may have researched it you could have read something about the animals from the arid parts of their range that is tottally irrelevant to the care of the rainforest animals. And again with knowing the locality of your animals gives you a better understanding of what their requirements as a captive are.

Nathan


----------



## caustichumor (Aug 24, 2008)

I don't think you will get them to care Sdaji, And if you did convert the masses then specific locality would become flavour of the month, and that would mean there would be so many "locality specific" animals for sale that the gravitational field around the earth would colapse and life on this planet would cease to exist.... or something....
It is too late to change the fact that most of the animals bred in captivity are simply lost to their native origins, As for why it is important, it is only important to the keeper that houses and maintains them, if you are happy to look at your animals and know that their great great great grandfather python used to eat possums and water rats down by ross river, then that is your answer. Most "pet" keepers are happy to know that their snake eats white mice and turn them into hairy chunks of crap...


----------



## Kathryn_ (Aug 24, 2008)

> There is no reasonable doubt at all that we can and do improve plants and animals.



Funnily enough I usually agree with your posts, but I'm really not coming to the party here. My understanding of domesticated plants and animals is that, while beneficial in the short term to us humies, they are disastrous for the general environment and species diversity, especially in Australia. I almost want to say more than anywhere, in Australia. Weirdly, beans are a really good exmaple of this - there used to to be hundreds upon hundreds of varieties of beans in the wild, now the species diversity has plummeted to include only those people like the taste of, and "old" wild species which exist only in botanical collections. I think that's really sad. Many of our snake species are pretty safe because their habitats just won't support us, or in the case of QLD and NT species, their habitats are protected (for now), so there's little danger of captive stocks becoming the only ones. Imagine if it ever happened, though? Say in a couple of hundred years the only representatives of particular species are hybrids and fancy mutants, with maybe a couple of wildtype animals in zoos? It sounds far fetched, but it's already happened to a huge number of plant an animals species due to captive breeding and habitat destruction. 

I own a really gorgeous proserpine locale coastal. I don't know how many generations of captive bred animals she comes from, or how likely I would be to find anything that looks like her just wandering around the bush in that area. What I do know is that she looks nothing like most captive coastals I see from other localities, and it would be really sad if the different locality type animals disappear into a general coastal mush of brown - that's such a diverse species, it would really be a shame. It would also be unfortunate if a handful of really attractive animals of a particular locale were inbred consistently over generations and ended up with health problems. I remember seeing someone on this site advising someone else that it would be ok to breed sibling animals to one another. The fact is you just don't know what hideous recessive conditions are floating around until they pop up through inbreeding or bad luck, and then you've got a clutch of very unwell animals. 

The dog example proves that people will keep breeding unhealthy animals in spite of this. The pugg's breathing problems are the dalmation's skin problems, almost every breed has its quirks and problems. European horse breeds are another example of animals that have been hideously, hideously inbred for aesthetics - Fresians in particular are just messed up. As far as I'm concerned, the fact that an animal is useful or pretty doesn't excuse messing with the natural order and increasing the potential for health problems in its descendants.


----------



## cement (Aug 25, 2008)

Its probably more patriotism for me. I like the thought of Australia being a bit different to all other countries and the fact that our native wildlife really makes us stand out because of its diversity and difference. To melt all of that into a big pond of hybrid stew just doesnt suit me. 
Plus i am genuinly interested in the different locational pressures that combine to make a species a little different from itself in a different place. It keeps the learning going, sort of like playing the guitar.


----------



## Sdaji (Aug 26, 2008)

Kathryn: Some fair points there, however, the purity debate still falls on to sentimental grounds (if you want to talk about the mixing of captive and wild animals, pure ones outside their natural range are just as bad as crosses). Domesticated reptiles wiping out other species will only happen if we somehow manage to produce 'supersnakes' which is extraordinarily unlikely (if it was possible it would already have happened naturally, unless we used exotic snakes, in which case you'd have a remote chance of it happening, and I wouldn't condone the keeping of exotics either pure or crossed).

In some cases plants have been tampered with in bad ways, I entirely agree. In some cases they have been used and introduced irresponsibly, causing severe damage, but I don't believe the plant examples are relevant to us in this context.

Inbreeding is another issue entirely, and while it's an interesting discussion it belongs in another thread, so I won't touch it (by all means, start the thread and I'll get right into it).

cement: I like your thoughts, and I share many of them. I think they're quite valid reasons for liking pure animals, but they're still sentimental reasons we can't expect everyone to agree with.


----------



## natrix (Aug 26, 2008)

I think most of it has to do with scarcity . There'll always be a high dollar market for things scarce.
Possibly meaning that in the future a 'pure' snake will fetch a whole lot more than what we
would now consider a rare & scarce animal.


----------



## Sdaji (Aug 26, 2008)

Pure snakes will never hold high dollar values. When pure animals are in demand, impure animals get labels of purety smacked on them. It is so common both here and overseas. If you want pure animals you often need to know where to look, and it's a lot more difficult than just buying from someone who makes the claim - everyone does that. It's difficult for newbies and I myself was burned when I bought my first pair of snakes, buying as pure from a reputable breeder, only to discover they were not what I had thought. This is all an entirely different issue though; you're talking about capitalism. Interestingly, even if what you are saying was the case, it wouldn't really matter. As you say, scarce things are valuable. If no one crossed, all animals would be pure, and a pure status wouldn't hold high value. Crosses might be valuable because they were rare, in which case they would be the valuable things.


----------



## natrix (Aug 26, 2008)

Ok , point taken .
Out of curiosity , what would be your own answer to your appreciation of morphs surfacing after the 'pet style keepers flooded our ranks' ?


----------



## Sdaji (Aug 26, 2008)

natrix said:


> Ok , point taken .
> Out of curiosity , what would be your own answer to your appreciation of morphs surfacing after the 'pet style keepers flooded our ranks' ?



At first I had no interest in morphs. I didn't like them, I'd have been happier if they never existed. I liked the idea of a natural animal, I liked the idea of having an animal exactly like the ones in the wild, so I could learn about and appreciate nature. The herp scene changed, the demand increased and changed. I didn't like it at first, and I suppose part of me still doesn't, but I'm realistic enough to accept what will never be the same. With a zillion people, many of them idiots, comes a lot of money and a lot of potential for problems. Poaching has never been as extensive as it is now. Exploitation is everywhere you can imagine, and a lot of areas you wouldn't even think to look. What I like about morphs is that you can't poach them. Some of the zillion new people in our ranks are idiots and many are irresponsible. Many will hate me for saying this, but I do not like people being encouraged to go out on field trips etc. I've seen too many good herping locations destroyed by irresponsible amateur herpers. The serious ones will go out and do field herping whether or not anyone encourages them. If you need to be encouraged I don't believe you should be going. If people think of snakes as artificial mutants, they won't be inclined to go our herping, infecting wild reptiles with whatever is on their hands after they played with them before leaving. They won't be destroying habitat and they won't be poaching. Because of the change in people, I love morphs and hope they catch on as quickly as possible. I have gained an appreciation for some of them, although I'll always love my naturalistic animals more than anything else, and for reasons I can not explain my personal preference remains for pure animals, even when it comes to designer morphs.

Morphs are also great because they do very poorly in the wild. A natural morph may live and breed if it escapes, potentially causing trouble. An albino snake will most likely be picked off by the first kookaburra which flies along. Hard hybrids (Carpondros, Water x Carpets, Woma x Scrubby etc) are extremely unlikely to survive in the wild; much less likely than pure snakes, and even if they do they are unlikely to reproduce. "Soft" hybrids (Carpet Crosses/locality crosses) are about as likely to survive and reproduce as pures, but then again, a pure is as bad as a hybrid outside its range.


----------



## Kathryn_ (Aug 26, 2008)

Sdaji said:


> pure ones outside their natural range are just as bad as crosses.



Cant agree with you there. For me it's about the degree of genetic difference between the parent animals, and that degree is far greater between a Stimpson's and a Childreni than between a wheatbelt stimmy and another locality.



> Domesticated reptiles wiping out other species will only happen if we somehow manage to produce 'supersnakes' which is extraordinarily unlikely (if it was possible it would already have happened naturally, unless we used exotic snakes, in which case you'd have a remote chance of it happening, and I wouldn't condone the keeping of exotics either pure or crossed).



Maybe I didn't word my post very well, I didn't mean that I think captive bred animals are a direct threat to wild animals, but that I think it would be unfortunate if a particular species or subspecies became extinct in the wild due to habitat loss etc, and the only captive examples of that animal weren't stock-standard wild-types, but morphs or hybrids. 



> In some cases plants have been tampered with in bad ways, I entirely agree. In some cases they have been used and introduced irresponsibly, causing severe damage, but I don't believe the plant examples are relevant to us in this context.



Maybe not in your context  I'm talking about loss of genetic diversity, so for me it seems entirely relevant. 



> Inbreeding is another issue entirely, and while it's an interesting discussion it belongs in another thread, so I won't touch it (by all means, start the thread and I'll get right into it).



I just don't know that I'm *that* brave, though I did notice that nobody answered my question about SXR's "albino pairs". : /


----------



## junglepython2 (Aug 26, 2008)

Kathryn_ said:


> Cant agree with you there. For me it's about the degree of genetic difference between the parent animals, and that degree is far greater between a Stimpson's and a Childreni than between a wheatbelt stimmy and another locality.
> 
> : /


 
I think he was trying to say a jungle x darwin escaping in darwin territory is just as bad pure jungle escaping in darwin territory.


----------



## Sdaji (Aug 27, 2008)

Kathryn_ said:


> Cant agree with you there. For me it's about the degree of genetic difference between the parent animals, and that degree is far greater between a Stimpson's and a Childreni than between a wheatbelt stimmy and another locality.



What junglepython said 



> Maybe I didn't word my post very well, I didn't mean that I think captive bred animals are a direct threat to wild animals, but that I think it would be unfortunate if a particular species or subspecies became extinct in the wild due to habitat loss etc, and the only captive examples of that animal weren't stock-standard wild-types, but morphs or hybrids.



Yes, I see your point, but we're breeding pets, not running a conservation project. I do think you have a valid point here. I'm not trying to shoot you down, just pointing out that people won't care because they have a different set of values. If a locality was to go extinct it would be better to have captive animals which looked like the extinct wild ones (again, this is purely sentimental). If a population was endangered I would hope that there would be people who would keep a natural-looking captive population (for this reason I'd like to see Oenpellies established, just in case). I can't for the life of me think of a species which is well established in captivity, being hybridised etc, which is endangered in the wild and has no naturalistic animals in captivity. Anyway, as I said, valid point.



> Maybe not in your context  I'm talking about loss of genetic diversity, so for me it seems entirely relevant.



You're going to rapidly lose genetic diversity in captivity whether or not you cross.



> I just don't know that I'm *that* brave, though I did notice that nobody answered my question about SXR's "albino pairs". : /



It seems you were brave enough. As promised I responded. Good luck with your studies! You seem keen and I hope you end up being a brilliant geneticist! The reptile world could use more!


----------



## Kathryn_ (Aug 27, 2008)

Geneticist? Ye gods, no. Try microbiologist. I lack the patience required for endless number-crunching in genetics, though working in gen mod, especially for crops in aus, would be rewarding if you could find a place to do it "properly". I do like the little bugs, though. Amoeba beat vertebrates in the cute stakes every time, for my money.


----------



## Sdaji (Aug 27, 2008)

Have fun counting cell cultures and repetitively sterilising pieces of wire in flames, then wiping them over agar plates, making up jelly, cleaning up jelly... 

I'll take reptiles over single-celled life. You can have them


----------



## BROWNS (Sep 1, 2008)

gold&black... said:


> Lol Sdaji, let me start by thanking u for starting this thread.... Finally a sensible conversation without ten year olds having a go at people for liking or disliking hybrids.... Like I mentioned earlier in one of my posts, what really is happening here is a bunch of old timers who know the market(profits), conditioning the noob's about what to to like and what not to like....Take my word, the future is a good looking snake rather than a locality specific ordinary snake........ Imagen, there was a guy on here (something turtle) who had a go at me for saying that line breeding makes snakes look better).. I find it funny that none of them can explain why they really like locality specific animals and can only speak of sentimental values... All of us in this reptile hobby know better than believe the breeder and we also know that not everything we get is always pure..... Infact, from what I understand, most Palmerston jungles have already been mixed with diamonds and most albinos have no locality(which no one really cares about). Any way, would really like to see where this conversation ends....... cheers
> 
> Chetan.
> (P.S. Love hybrids).....



:lol:gold%black let me start by asking how you come across the understanding that most Palmerston jungles have diamond in them?It wouldn't happen to be from a certain well known breeder who spreads this story to every man and his dog.One reason given is that the Krauss lineage specifically the line from Peter Krauss that John Montgomery breeds tend to have quite a lot of gold/yellow flecking through the black just like the ones in the pic I've posted so because the black is not pure black and has yellow flecking which believe it or not is rather common in many jungles from many localities!Have you ever even driven up The Palmerston or do you even know the area the Palmerston rainforest covers and how many different looking jungles can be found there?I'll bet you haven't and are just going on hearsay?

Now if you were to smuggle jungles in from America would you not bring in the best lineage possible that stays nice and small as do our true rainforest jungles do with strong solid black and super bright gold/yellow that doesn't blackout and stays clean as a whistle for the rest of it's life like many US Jungles do?The ones I have a fair idea you're talking about for starters is only one bloodline of Palmerston locality jungles,there are many many other breeders with their own Palmerston bloodlines that they breed and one could take your comment as meaning the junges found in the Palmerston area have diamond in them which is propostrous to say the least.I myself have seen pure Palmerstons brighter and better than any you get in captivity and so have very many other people,you would be surprised what's out there in the wild and many of the wild specimens can have a great deal of the gold/yellow flecking and some have a bit and some none!

I would not believe everything you here and suggest you do some field herping yourself and you'll see exactly what I mean.I mean honestly why would someone in Australia the home of jungles smuggle in a line that tends to almost always black out around 3-5 years old when they could have got a line that stays 3-5 foot in size and keeps bright as can be gol/yellow that doesn't blackout with age,I'm sorry but I'm sick of hearing this story and then people making cracks about it who I'm guessing haven't even been up The Palmerston or even know where it is.

Have you been field herping in that area chetan and seen the varience in jungles you will come across if you do put enough time into spotting for them?My guess is NO but I'd love to hear your answer seeing as you seem to think you know a bit about them according to the majority having diamond in them in the hobby or the wild???


----------



## herpkeeper (Sep 1, 2008)

i agree with Browns totally. if G/B you had in fact done any herping for yourself from tully to the palmerston area's, you would have come across just as many animals with the yellow / gold flecking than the ones with solid black. i'm sure some of the big breeders who are dead against cross breeding within sub species would either split their sides laughing or start puking at such a coment ! as True Blue stated, ask someone like Dave from Pilbara Pythons, he lived in the area for long enough, he's seen PLENTY of jungles in the wild not on american web sites.................... go clock up a few kilometers for yourself, then come back and tell us all that most jungles are crossed with diamonds !!!


----------



## Colin (Sep 1, 2008)

gold&black... said:


> Infact, from what I understand, most Palmerston jungles have already been mixed with diamonds Chetan.
> (P.S. Love hybrids).....




:lol: thats the most bizzare statement (even for APS) I"ve heard in a long time :lol: 

Is there a reptile on the planet that hasn't already been crossed with diamonds???


----------



## BROWNS (Sep 1, 2008)

Agreed most stupid comment of the year award goes to........take a guess???

Geez n I thought a jungle diamond cross was an intergrade,damn and just when I thought I had it right!


----------

