# Crack down on subspecies crosses Queensland



## andynic07 (Apr 16, 2014)

It appears that the authorities in Queensland are starting to enforce the rules around hybrids as I have heard of someone getting fined and snakes being confiscated. Has anyone else heard of this happening?


----------



## gozz (Apr 16, 2014)

About time


----------



## butters (Apr 16, 2014)

Is it subspecies crosses or species crosses they are targeting. I can't see them chasing someone with intergrades.


----------



## andynic07 (Apr 16, 2014)

I do not know if it is an actual crack down or a one off and not sure even what species or subspecies they were. Just seeing the fallout of cheap snakes and he told me that he was done.


----------



## PythonLegs (Apr 16, 2014)

Bout time..hope its legit.


----------



## Bart70 (Apr 16, 2014)

butters said:


> Is it subspecies crosses or species crosses they are targeting. I can't see them chasing someone with intergrades.



Neither can I.....Given they are naturally occurring and not the result of somebody crossing two species.


----------



## andynic07 (Apr 16, 2014)

Bear in mind it is not illegal to own a hybrid or mutation but it is illegal to knowing breed a hybrid or mutation.


----------



## Retic (Apr 16, 2014)

Isnt this a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted LOL. Take all this out of the hands of the wildlife authorities and treat them as what they are, pets.


----------



## PilbaraPythons (Apr 16, 2014)

That would be good Boa in a perfect world where everybody could be trusted lol


----------



## longqi (Apr 17, 2014)

boa said:


> Isnt this a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted LOL. Take all this out of the hands of the wildlife authorities and treat them as what they are, pets.



Bit different for you though Boa
They are not native animals up your way

Where they are a native animal they deserve some level of protection even if their conservation use in future is highly doubtful and many are treated as family pets


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Apr 17, 2014)

longqi said:


> Bit different for you though Boa
> They are not native animals up your way
> 
> Where they are a native animal they deserve some level of protection even if their conservation use in future is highly doubtful and many are treated as family pets



Exactly. Although boa is correct about the stable door, he has never understood the connection between management of pet reptiles in an extremely reptile-rich environment, and the self-limiting effects of the environmentally ruined and climatically adverse reptile desert into which he has chosen to return. That's not to say that the management of reptile keepers here in Oz is anything but chaotic and ineffective either...

Ashley, just once in a while it would be nice if you said something positive about reptile keeping in Australia instead of the constant sideswipes you seem compelled to make about reptile keeping in this country. You've made your choice to go back to the UK with all the reptile treasures you covet, be happy with that (I'm sure you are) and try not to sound so superior. If Australia had the same climate as the UK across its length and breadth, you'd probably have to find something else to poke your stick at.

Jamie


----------



## Fuscus (Apr 17, 2014)

boa said:


> Isnt this a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted LOL. Take all this out of the hands of the wildlife authorities and treat them as what they are, pets.


The easy answer to this is look at the number of threads that start with "Help! My snake has escaped".

I know of one who cross bred waters python with a morelia species ( which if I was asked, I would have said couldn't happen ). He did the right thing and declared them. The animals were seized but I don't know if he was fined.
I think that crosses between different subspecies are legally OK, QLD only has a single code for Morelia spolita. I strongly suggest that you actually ask DERM before doing so. Personally I keep the subspecies separate.


----------



## andynic07 (Apr 17, 2014)

I have heard of that cross as well and that person is a member on here but I will not say who it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## eipper (Apr 17, 2014)

Melbourne zoo crossed fuscus and spilota in the late seventies. Well and truly before Nathan did it.


----------



## Rogue5861 (Apr 17, 2014)

Ive heard they are about to do the same in SA. That goes for any morelia crosses not just the apparent "loop hole".


Rick


----------



## Retic (Apr 17, 2014)

longqi said:


> Bit different for you though Boa
> They are not native animals up your way
> 
> Where they are a native animal they deserve some level of protection even if their conservation use in future is highly doubtful and many are treated as family pets



I have not suggested they shouldnt be protected but for them to come under the protection of the wildlife authority is ridiculous, they should be covered by a different section altogether. Pets and native animals are very different.

- - - Updated - - -



Pythoninfinite said:


> Exactly. Although boa is correct about the stable door, he has never understood the connection between management of pet reptiles in an extremely reptile-rich environment, and the self-limiting effects of the environmentally ruined and climatically adverse reptile desert into which he has chosen to return. That's not to say that the management of reptile keepers here in Oz is anything but chaotic and ineffective either...
> 
> Ashley, just once in a while it would be nice if you said something positive about reptile keeping in Australia instead of the constant sideswipes you seem compelled to make about reptile keeping in this country. You've made your choice to go back to the UK with all the reptile treasures you covet, be happy with that (I'm sure you are) and try not to sound so superior. If Australia had the same climate as the UK across its length and breadth, you'd probably have to find something else to poke your stick at.
> 
> Jamie



Hi Jamie, how have you been?


----------



## champagne (Apr 17, 2014)

looks like all the cross bred morphs just became ''pure''. All this is going to do is make everyone lie about what they are breeding... I would ask them to prove it in a court of law it was a cross before handing anything over.


----------



## Retic (Apr 17, 2014)

champagne said:


> looks like all the cross bred morphs just became ''pure''. All this is going to do is make everyone lie about what they are breeding... I would ask them to prove it in a court of law it was a cross before handing anything over.



It will achieve nothing. Just another example of throwing their weight around. If they were serious about it they would have done something at the start not now.


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Apr 17, 2014)

boa said:


> I have not suggested they shouldnt be protected but for them to come under the protection of the wildlife authority is ridiculous, they should be covered by a different section altogether. Pets and native animals are very different.
> 
> - - - Updated - - -
> 
> ...



Ah, you know Ash, life goes on... and on... and on... ! Although there was a bit of good news last week - Neil Simpson's appeal against his heaviest ever fines & costs awarded in NSW was dismissed by the judge, so he has to fork out the initial nearly $40k plus I presume the costs of his appeal, which would be very substantial. But as we all know, it's easy come, easy go for him.

Nice vipers you have there - does anyone keep the English adders over there Ash? I understand they're a bit challenging to keep long-term?

J


----------



## champagne (Apr 17, 2014)

boa said:


> It will achieve nothing. Just another example of throwing their weight around. If they were serious about it they would have done something at the start not now.



exactly even when the south Australian parks and wildlife went after the bredli jag clutch, they admitted they had nothing to prove it was a cross in a court of law so they purely throw their weight around and the breeder crumbled at the threats... I would of been good if they did something at the start to stop the jag crosses but too little to late I'm afraid. All it will do now is just make all the breeders list everything as pure, which will wreck the hobby for other keepers that only want to keep pure species or want nothing to do with the whole jag or zebra craze and the problem ''sibs'' that come with it.


----------



## stary boy (Apr 17, 2014)

Agree completely. It will just bring more dishonesty into the hobby and make it extremely difficult to buy truley pure snakes (which of course are the most beautiful, pure australian reptils  ) 



champagne said:


> exactly even when the south Australian parks and wildlife went after the bredli jag clutch, they admitted they had nothing to prove it was a cross in a court of law so they purely throw their weight around and the breeder crumbled at the threats... I would of been good if they did something at the start to stop the jag crosses but too little to late I'm afraid. All it will do now is just make all the breeders list everything as pure, which will wreck the hobby for other keepers that only want to keep pure species or want nothing to do with the whole jag or zebra craze and the problem ''sibs'' that come with it.


----------



## Rogue5861 (Apr 17, 2014)

champagne said:


> exactly even when the south Australian parks and wildlife went after the bredli jag clutch, they admitted they had nothing to prove it was a cross in a court of law so they purely throw their weight around and the breeder crumbled at the threats... I would of been good if they did something at the start to stop the jag crosses but too little to late I'm afraid. All it will do now is just make all the breeders list everything as pure, which will wreck the hobby for other keepers that only want to keep pure species or want nothing to do with the whole jag or zebra craze and the problem ''sibs'' that come with it.



Its not just jags (some jags are almost pure coastal) they are going after, they are also looking at 50/50 and 25/75 morelias of crossed blood. This would also included bredli to diamond crosses which seem to be popping up. 

It would be nice if they actually did start stomping in doors and removing these animals, after all they werent heavily policed before but it is just getting out of hand. If they do started removing animals im sure they will euthanize these animals, its not something i want to do but if its an illegal it will be destroyed.


Rick


----------



## cement (Apr 17, 2014)

gee, looks like the jag and crossing scene might actually be starting to do the harm to the hobby that I remember hearing about years ago when the original crap fight began.

What came first? The chicken or the egg?
The cross or the NPWS?


----------



## longqi (Apr 18, 2014)

cement said:


> gee, looks like the jag and crossing scene might actually be starting to do the harm to the hobby that I remember hearing about years ago when the original crap fight began.
> 
> What came first? The chicken or the egg?
> The cross or the NPWS?



Very interesting to read some of the old threads here
Wonder how many have changed their minds a bit now??


----------



## Retic (Apr 18, 2014)

Pythoninfinite said:


> Ah, you know Ash, life goes on... and on... and on... ! Although there was a bit of good news last week - Neil Simpson's appeal against his heaviest ever fines & costs awarded in NSW was dismissed by the judge, so he has to fork out the initial nearly $40k plus I presume the costs of his appeal, which would be very substantial. But as we all know, it's easy come, easy go for him.
> 
> Nice vipers you have there - does anyone keep the English adders over there Ash? I understand they're a bit challenging to keep long-term?
> 
> J



I am surprised they didn't lock him up this time to be honest. He will have to come up some new scam to pay the bills now.

I love my Vipers, the start of a large collection I think  Funnily enough I just got back from Adder hunting, saw 9 of various sizes and sexes. CB youngsters seem to do OK 
and wild caught are not too bad if you can convince them to feed. They are one of my favourite species.
Here's one from this morning.


----------



## champagne (Apr 19, 2014)

Rogue5861 said:


> Its not just jags (some jags are almost pure coastal) they are going after, they are also looking at 50/50 and 25/75 morelias of crossed blood. This would also included bredli to diamond crosses which seem to be popping up.
> 
> It would be nice if they actually did start stomping in doors and removing these animals, after all they werent heavily policed before but it is just getting out of hand. If they do started removing animals im sure they will euthanize these animals, its not something i want to do but if its an illegal it will be destroyed.
> 
> ...



They have admitted that the have no way of proving in a court of law any cross bred Sub species and I would challenge them to prove any Morelia species crosses... They are all just pet snakes with no conservation value but unfortunately for people who enjoy keeping pure stock it will continue to be harder to find these animals.


----------



## yellowbeard (Apr 19, 2014)

andynic07 said:


> It appears that the authorities in Queensland are starting to enforce the rules around hybrids as I have heard of someone getting fined and snakes being confiscated. Has anyone else heard of this happening?



If there was a crack down they are going to be pretty busy in QLD, hundreds of breeders producing thousands of hybrids!

- - - Updated - - -



champagne said:


> looks like all the cross bred morphs just became ''pure''. All this is going to do is make everyone lie about what they are breeding... I would ask them to prove it in a court of law it was a cross before handing anything over.



Agreed I hope this is not the case, the NSW system allows for the proper recording of hybrids

- - - Updated - - -

This thread has some interesting view points:

What should be done with sibs?


----------



## champagne (Apr 19, 2014)

yellowbeard said:


> If there was a crack down they are going to be pretty busy in QLD, hundreds of breeders producing thousands of hybrids!
> 
> - - - Updated - - -
> 
> ...



I think the solution isn't to ban the crosses but to improve the licensing system (if we have to have one) so that every animal is able to be put on the books for what they are. It's not hard but just shows how out dated and out of touch the licensing system really is...


----------



## Ramy (Apr 19, 2014)

The licencing system isn't designed for people who want to keep chihuahuas. The licencing system is designed to keep track of wild animals in captivity, and to disincentivise catching wild animals illegally. The kind of work that goes into kennel clubs is very different to what the environmental agencies were aiming to do in giving us permission to keep native animals. Its not out of touch nearly as much as it's them trying to do as much as they can with as little resources as they can.

Maybe if the reptile keeping community wants to keep hybrids/crosses/morphs, they should be the ones to approach the department of whatever and come up with a solution?


----------



## champagne (Apr 19, 2014)

Ramy said:


> The licencing system isn't designed for people who want to keep chihuahuas. The licencing system is designed to keep track of wild animals in captivity, and to disincentivise catching wild animals illegally. The kind of work that goes into kennel clubs is very different to what the environmental agencies were aiming to do in giving us permission to keep native animals. Its not out of touch nearly as much as it's them trying to do as much as they can with as little resources as they can.
> 
> Maybe if the reptile keeping community wants to keep hybrids/crosses/morphs, they should be the ones to approach the department of whatever and come up with a solution?



That is a very head in the sand solution to the problem. It would be very easy for parks and wildlife to add sub species crosses to the list or even "carpet python unknown". You are right tho The licencing system isn't designed for people who want to keep chihuahuas and that's the problem. Why would people who breed crosses, morphs and hybrids approach parks and wildlife with a solution? What they do isn't effecting them, it will only effect people who like to keep pure reptiles.

- - - Updated - - -

The hobby is changing whether we or parks and wildlife like it or not. They are happy to take the increases license fees, so the should be looking after everyone's interest in the hobby.


----------



## Dragon_77 (Apr 19, 2014)

About time the Wildlife Authorities started to crackdown on those who cross-breed Reptiles.
I myself remember when a guy way back in 1997 cross-breed a Centralian & Coastal Carpet Python's, and the Wildlife Authorities new about it at the time and did nothing to stop him from selling them into the pet trade.

l have always been against keeping cross-breed-morphs-hybrids, I myself would much prefer to keep pure un-related Reptile's only each and everyone to their own.

I have never ever kept any albino Darwin, Jags, Carpet Python's, and have no intention on getting any of these sub-species now or in the future.

You can still get hold of pure Reptiles if you know where to look or contact, l can get hold of pure un-related Reptile's if l want to and have the contacts that l know of like myself who only keep and breed pure locale Reptile's.

All l keep at the moment are 1 pair of wild caught on permit Olive Python's, and l love them both they are so tame and placid to keep and handle.


----------



## PilbaraPythons (Apr 19, 2014)

Perhaps it’s just my imagination, but to me it seems to be that those who have spent the most time exploring the bush herping are generally the people who usually become the purists. Not hard to figure out why I think.


----------



## Retic (Apr 20, 2014)

PilbaraPythons said:


> Perhaps it’s just my imagination, but to me it seems to be that those who have spent the most time exploring the bush herping are generally the people who usually become the purists. Not hard to figure out why I think.



Not necessarily, I know numerous people who breed crosses that have done more than their fair share of bush herping. Bit too much of a generalisation really.


----------



## yellowbeard (Apr 20, 2014)

Now as of the 2013 list in NSW there are 13 hybrids, mostly Morelia, a few dragons and skinks. So I would say that the licencing system in NSW is keeping up (or trying to) with what is actually being bred and understand that hybrids are here now and will be a part of the reptile industry for some time to come now.

This is very simple, other states need to come out of the dark ages and review their licencing systems to reflect what is being bred and make it mandatory to list a hybrid as such, the final buck stops at the licencing authority within your state, so if you want someone to blame try your state government.

BTW I have not heard anything at all about a crack down on hybrid or mutation breeding in QLD, maybe the person that was fined and animals confiscated was because they did something else and is not willing to tell the truth?


----------



## wokka (Apr 20, 2014)

If breeders feel it is necessary to record the family tree of an animal then that is the job of a breed society. If you bother to do it,then it should be done properly and preferably efficiently so that counts the government out. I dont know what the purpose of licencing is, but it cant be to determine the purity of an animal since no animals are individually identified within the licencing system. All Breed Societies I can think of are privately owned and operated and are often just a marketing organisation, which doesn't fit in with the government regulator's mandate, and which is generally anti commercialising of reptiles.


----------



## RoryBreaker (Apr 20, 2014)

The vibe I hear is that a lot of keepers are getting out of carpets, it's just too hard to prove that what you produce isn't tainted by any of the morph by products ( unless you say that you caught the parents out of the "big paddock" yourself). 
Pretty sad IMO.


----------



## TrueBlue (Apr 20, 2014)

There has always been lies and deceit when it comes to jags in this country, right from the very start. Looks like the lies and deceit will just increase to another level. Tells a lot about the sort of people,( well many of them anyway), that keep these vermin in our hobby.
Pure all the way for me, I have never had anything to do with jags or any cross-bred mongrels and i never will.

I cant see why anyone would bother when pure animals like this can be produced with out much trouble.


----------



## Dragon_77 (Apr 20, 2014)

RoryBreaker said:


> The vibe I hear is that a lot of keepers are getting out of carpets, it's just too hard to prove that what you produce isn't tainted by any of the morph by products ( unless you say that you caught the parents out of the "big paddock" yourself).
> Pretty sad IMO.



Like you say that the vibe you hear is that a lot of keepers are getting out of keeping Carpet Python's, l myself couldn't agree more with what you have said in your post.

This is the reason l wont be keeping anymore Carpet-Black-Headed-Woma Python's, because without proof of where they come from naturally from the wild, and that they have not been cross-breed with other sub-species from different locations far afield, how do you know that you are getting 100% pure un-related you don't.

Unless the person can provide a take from the wild permit to show where and when they were collected from IMO.

- - - Updated - - -



TrueBlue said:


> There has always been lies and deceit when it comes to jags in this country, right from the very start. Looks like the lies and deceit will just increase to another level. Tells a lot about the sort of people that keep these vermin in our hobby.
> Pure all the way for me, I have never had anything to do with jags or any cross-bred mongrels and i never will.
> 
> I cant see why anyone would bother when pure animals like this can be produced with out much trouble.



TrueBlue, like you say in your post Pure all the way, l to am only interested in keeping Pure un-related Python's myself, and have never kept any jags or cross-breed Python's of any species and l to never ever will in my life has Herpetologist or Reptile keeper.

Its good to see there are more keepers on my side against keeping jags and cross-breed Python's.


----------



## TrueBlue (Apr 20, 2014)

Yes the times are a changing. The jag, cross-bred mongrel era is comming to an end it looks like.
It seems that people are moving away from jags by the droves as they have been here long enough now so that alot of people are seeing first hand the long term medical issues with these vermin.


----------



## Red-Ink (Apr 20, 2014)

Genetically all carpets are indistinguishable... 
The variation in them is vast... even in the classified sub-species.
The only way the authorities can "police" this is: Bredli X whatever for sale cheap, het whatever you like come and get me please Mr Authority in the ad. 

They are pets of no conservational value and I don't understand why this law is even coming about? 
If the authority were serious about "welfare" it's pretty simple grow some hemipenes and actually just target the snakes that break dance when stressed... at least even visually it's easy to tell which ones they are.


----------



## wokka (Apr 20, 2014)

Dragon_77 said:


> This is the reason l wont be keeping anymore Carpet-Black-Headed-Woma Python's, because without proof of where they come from naturally from the wild, and that they have not been cross-breed with other sub-species from different locations far afield, how do you know that you are getting 100% pure un-related you don't.
> 
> Unless the person can provide a take from the wild permit to show where and when they were collected from IMO.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dragon_77 (Apr 20, 2014)

- - - Updated - - -


I doubt that 0.01% of keepers could show you the information requested, Trueblue included, and then even if they can most have no way of identifying individual animals or linking their parents.
It boils down to wether you trust the breeder and the information he provides. Th government authorities arn't or cant do it for you![/QUOTE]

Warwick, Thanks for replying to my post in regards to keepers being able to prove to me where their Reptile's come from.
The only way any keeper can prove to me where their Reptile's come from and that they are pure un-related, is if they were collected on permit from the wild, and a DNA blood test is done to show whether or not they are from the same family, and if or not they are willing to share that information to me or anyone else.

l myself do have 1 pair of pure un-related NT phase Olive Python's, that were collected on permit on a snake callout in late 1999, so least l know where my pair of Olive Python's come from and they both a pure un-related to each other.


----------



## Ramy (Apr 20, 2014)

Red-Ink said:


> They are pets of no conservational value and I don't understand why this law is even coming about?
> If the authority were serious about "welfare" it's pretty simple grow some hemipenes and actually just target the snakes that break dance when stressed... at least even visually it's easy to tell which ones they are.



Part of the problem is escaped pets. What if a jag got out and managed to breed in the wild? What if a bredli cross got out and managed to breed just once before the kookaburras found them? After all, it's the reason we don't let Aussie's keep corn snakes. It's the reason we won't let them bring in Ball Pythons. That, and disease. But mostly because we don't want any more animals (toad, rabbit, deer, myna...) naturalising in our environment.

We would prefer that if local wild animals changed, that it's because it was evolutionarily advantageous, not because we spilt the milk. Jags under-mine that. Also, that if for any reason jungle carpet pythons disappeared in the wild, we like to think that we atleast managed to keep a few demo models in the shop.


----------



## Red-Ink (Apr 20, 2014)

Ramy said:


> Part of the problem is escaped pets. What if a jag got out and managed to breed in the wild? What if a bredli cross got out and managed to breed just once before the kookaburras found them? After all, it's the reason we don't let Aussie's keep corn snakes. It's the reason we won't let them bring in Ball Pythons. That, and disease. But mostly because we don't want any more animals (toad, rabbit, deer, myna...) naturalising in our environment.
> 
> We would prefer that if local wild animals changed, that it's because it was evolutionarily advantageous, not because we spilt the milk. Jags under-mine that. Also, that if for any reason jungle carpet pythons disappeared in the wild, we like to think that we atleast managed to keep a few demo models in the shop.



If escaped pets was going to be the reasoning then a bredli or a MD (jag genetics, pure or not) getting out in FNQ and mixing with the local wildlife would be a threat to the local endemic carpet population... by that reasoning, no one in OZ should be allowed to keep anything that is not endemic to the area.


----------



## ozziepythons (Apr 20, 2014)

PilbaraPythons said:


> Perhaps it’s just my imagination, but to me it seems to be that those who have spent the most time exploring the bush herping are generally the people who usually become the purists. Not hard to figure out why I think.



Agreed. Bush experienced herpers tend to appreciate the differences in morphology between locality specific bloodlines (i.e. colour and pattern between areas such as Uluru vs SA womas, Wheatbelt vs NSW stimsons, SA vs Vic Murrays) rather than candy coloured mixed bloodline progeny.


----------



## PilbaraPythons (Apr 20, 2014)

Please name a couple of them for me Boa lol 


boa said:


> Not necessarily, I know numerous people who breed crosses that have done more than their fair share of bush herping. Bit too much of a generalisation really.


----------



## Elapidae1 (Apr 20, 2014)

Have to agree with Dave, Herpers are much more likely to be purists than outright keepers and while it may be a generalisation It rings true with every herper I know personally that their Ideals and ideas are generally more aligned with one another than with those only interested in keeping.


----------



## champagne (Apr 20, 2014)

TrueBlue said:


> Yes the times are a changing. The jag, cross-bred mongrel area is comming to an end it looks like.
> It seems that people are moving away from jags by the droves as they have been here long enough now so that alot of people are seeing first hand the long term medical issues with these vermin.



Jags, zebras, crosses ect are here to stay, if anyone thinks otherwise they just have their head in the sand.


----------



## PilbaraPythons (Apr 20, 2014)

I have seen it with my own eyes a few people who had limited appreciation of a particular species until they spent large tracks of time exploring the habitat. One obvious example is a close mate of mine who viewed Pygmy pythons as just a real ugly sister of a children’s python and not really worthy of been considered on our very limited W.A collecting list additions over other species. The same person now appreciates and keeps this species and I know how that appreciation grew upon him just as I had predicted it would.


----------



## longqi (Apr 20, 2014)

champagne said:


> Jags, zebras, crosses ect are here to stay, if anyone thinks otherwise they just have their head in the sand.



Jags were always a money game and always will be about the money so some people will always breed them
But
Interesting to see how many of the original jag enthusiasts now no longer breed them
Their jags are older now
They have seen the results of increasing neuro in these absolutely gorgeous snakes and are walking away

Crosses are definitely here to stay though
Too many great looking neuro free morphs being developed and proven out
They are the paint jobs of the future in Aus whether you like it or not


----------



## champagne (Apr 20, 2014)

longqi said:


> Jags were always a money game and always will be about the money so some people will always breed them
> But
> Interesting to see how many of the original jag enthusiasts now no longer breed them
> Their jags are older now
> ...



Yes but the breeders that got into jags for the money and are now getting out, are now jumping on the zebra money train... Plenty of people still breed jags and the neruo thing is so over rated it's not funny but what ever the purist want to believe.


----------



## Hoplophile (Apr 20, 2014)

eipper said:


> Melbourne zoo crossed fuscus and spilota in the late seventies. Well and truly before Nathan did it.



And between _Morelia spilo__ta _and _Morelia kinghorni/amethistina_ as well Scott (same male in both cases). The progeny had small scatted head scales like a carpet.


----------



## yellowbeard (Apr 20, 2014)

andynic07 said:


> Has anyone else heard of this happening?



No one has by the look of it, there is no DOE QLD crack down happening.


----------



## longqi (Apr 20, 2014)

champagne said:


> Yes but the breeders that got into jags for the money and are now getting out, are now jumping on the zebra money train... Plenty of people still breed jags and the neruo thing is so over rated it's not funny but what ever the purist want to believe.



Neuro is NOT over rated
It is present in every jag just to more or less extent
New jag owners with young snakes simply dont see it as much
Same with breeders who seldom handle their snakes
But as jags get older the neuro often worsens

Few jags over 10yrs old dont show bad neuro if handled
Try to find anyone overseas with old jags ie 14yrs
Only a few of them still alive and relatively healthy


----------



## Retic (Apr 20, 2014)

yellowbeard said:


> No one has by the look of it, there is no DOE QLD crack down happening.



LOL but it created 50+ posts.


----------



## andynic07 (Apr 20, 2014)

yellowbeard said:


> No one has by the look of it, there is no DOE QLD crack down happening.



I did state in a post that it may have been a one off. I think crosses are here to stay and would hate to see a "crackdown" happen because it would cause a lot of snakes to be sold off as something they are not due to fear. I had hoped to get a gauge on if others had heard of this happening and if not wondered why this person was singled out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## PilbaraPythons (Apr 20, 2014)

Well I hope they single many more of them out lol


----------



## Retic (Apr 20, 2014)

I reckon there are much worse truly illegal activities within the hobby that should be cracked down on personally.


----------



## andynic07 (Apr 20, 2014)

boa said:


> I reckon there are much worse truly illegal activities within the hobby that should be cracked down on personally.


What is the things that you suggest are worse illegal activities out of interest?


----------



## champagne (Apr 21, 2014)

longqi said:


> Neuro is NOT over rated
> It is present in every jag just to more or less extent
> New jag owners with young snakes simply dont see it as much
> Same with breeders who seldom handle their snakes
> ...



Im not saying it is there but the purist love to bash on jags and claim they are a cork screwing which isn't the case... And how many jags have you kept that are over 10 years old?


----------



## Retic (Apr 21, 2014)

champagne said:


> Im not saying it is there but the purist love to bash on jags and claim they are a cork screwing which isn't the case... And how many jags have you kept that are over 10 years old?



I'm not a huge Jag fan and actually only have 3 and I do agree the neuro issue is certainly exaggerated, many show absolutely no signs at all, some show slight signs and a minority show extreme signs.


----------



## Rlpreston (Apr 21, 2014)

PilbaraPythons said:


> I have seen it with my own eyes a few people who had limited appreciation of a particular species until they spent large tracks of time exploring the habitat. One obvious example is a close mate of mine who viewed Pygmy pythons as just a real ugly sister of a children’s python and not really worthy of been considered on our very limited W.A collecting list additions over other species. The same person now appreciates and keeps this species and I know how that appreciation grew upon him just as I had predicted it would.



There is a difference between not being interested in a particular species (or thinking they are ugly) and wanting to mash everything up into a mayhem of crosses/bad genes, wouldn't you agree? 

I also take exception as I have literally NEVER been out 'bush herping' and I greatly appreciate natives in their natural/pure forms (and keep nothing muddied myself). 

I do, however, have no interest personally in keeping Anteresia at this point in time. Just not my cup of tea!


----------



## andynic07 (Apr 21, 2014)

Rlpreston said:


> There is a difference between not being interested in a particular species (or thinking they are ugly) and wanting to mash everything up into a mayhem of crosses/bad genes, wouldn't you agree?
> 
> I also take exception as I have literally NEVER been out 'bush herping' and I greatly appreciate natives in their natural/pure forms (and keep nothing muddied myself).
> 
> I do, however, have no interest personally in keeping Anteresia at this point in time. Just not my cup of tea!


I find that any snake that I see in person has wow factor , I never had an interest in adders because they mainly sat there doing nothing but once I saw an adder in person on my ven course I loved them and will get some. I also get a lot more excited seeing a snake in the wild than I do in enclosures, I don't really know why but it is great and your adrenaline gets going.


----------



## PilbaraPythons (Apr 21, 2014)

I am still waiting to here who Boa lol



boa said:


> Not necessarily, I know numerous people who breed crosses that have done more than their fair share of bush herping. Bit too much of a generalisation really.



- - - Updated - - -

Still waiting on this one to lol


andynic07 said:


> What is the things that you suggest are worse illegal activities out of interest?


----------



## Retic (Apr 21, 2014)

Poaching, passing off wild caught as captive bred for a start, use your imagination Dave there are loads of things worse than cross breeding some pet snakes


----------



## chimerapro (Apr 21, 2014)

andynic07 said:


> It appears that the authorities in Queensland are starting to enforce the rules around hybrids as I have heard of someone getting fined and snakes being confiscated. Has anyone else heard of this happening?



They are not starting at all and it is no way a "crack down" yes from rumour only I have heard of a private keeper being caught with unlicenced animals, record books poorly kept and a few lizard hybrids (most likely from poor communal housing, not through intentional hybridising) fines may be issued. Once again all only via the hobbies gossip girls as rumour, no public media release has been made by DEHP in any way indicating that this has actually happened. As for me I got off scott free no fine no conviction (No guts No Glory) I'd do it again too for the record  The Dept is under resourced and has very poor knowledge of the goings on within our industry and even poorer knowledge when it comes to species identification. 



Hoplophile said:


> And between Morelia spilota and Morelia kinghorni/amethistina as well Scott (same male in both cases). The progeny had small scatted head scales like a carpet.


Scott & Hoplophile in your taxonomic wisdom and years of industry knowledge and experience you must surely know the male carpet that mated with the scrub and the water females (housed communally in a zoo exhibit, with no manipulation to induce hybridisation whatsoever except for an artificial habitat) was in fact a Coastal carpet python from the SEQld region Morelia spilota mcdowelli? So in reference to the animals I produced as not being a first recorded instance of hybridisation in their respective right as my animals were Morelia spilota varigata (female Darwin locality) & Liasis fuscus (male Qld locality) prove to me that this exact hybrid has been produced before and I'll gladly eat my words! 
For those that don't know I spend plenty of time in the field, I love locality specific animals (proud owner of wildcaught Katherine NT locality A.childreni amongst other things) have owned jags (like their looks, don't like the defect) don't own jags anymore and most likely won't (may do though), I love all kinds of hybrids and also would love to see some conservation value put back into some of the hobbies livestock.


----------



## PilbaraPythons (Apr 21, 2014)

What did you cross to create a hybrid that got you charged if you don't mind me asking ?
Sorry ignore that question, I just read your post properly.


----------



## andynic07 (Apr 21, 2014)

chimerapro said:


> They are not starting at all and it is no way a "crack down" yes from rumour only I have heard of a private keeper being caught with unlicenced animals, record books poorly kept and a few lizard hybrids (most likely from poor communal housing, not through intentional hybridising) fines may be issued. Once again all only via the hobbies gossip girls as rumour, no public media release has been made by DEHP in any way indicating that this has actually happened. As for me I got off scott free no fine no conviction (No guts No Glory) I'd do it again too for the record  The Dept is under resourced and has very poor knowledge of the goings on within our industry and even poorer knowledge when it comes to species identification.
> 
> 
> Scott & Hoplophile in your taxonomic wisdom and years of industry knowledge and experience you must surely know the male carpet that mated with the scrub and the water females (housed communally in a zoo exhibit, with no manipulation to induce hybridisation whatsoever except for an artificial habitat) was in fact a Coastal carpet python from the SEQld region Morelia spilota mcdowelli? So in reference to the animals I produced as not being a first recorded instance of hybridisation in their respective right as my animals were Morelia spilota varigata (female Darwin locality) & Liasis fuscus (male Qld locality) prove to me that this exact hybrid has been produced before and I'll gladly eat my words!
> For those that don't know I spend plenty of time in the field, I love locality specific animals (proud owner of wildcaught Katherine NT locality A.childreni amongst other things) have owned jags (like their looks, don't like the defect) don't own jags anymore and most likely won't (may do though), I love all kinds of hybrids and also would love to see some conservation value put back into some of the hobbies livestock.


I agree that it was stories that I heard but I am not sure that the stories that you heard and the stories that I heard are the same stories. I am also aware that there is a lot of chit chat in the hobby and that is why I posted more in a question as to what have people heard instead on of this is what is happening. The title was deliberately posted in a way to get peoples attention so I could get a good range of stories/experiences and generate some discussion. Thanks for posting on your experience with cross species breeding as you did not have to.


----------



## eipper (Apr 22, 2014)

Ron,

i am am well aware of the scrub x.... It had a scale abnormality from memory to.

Nathan,

I would need to check what sort of carpet produced the hybrids and the exact circumstances. I am fairly sure as to how and what was involved- but I don't think your quite right either. It's not the most pressing affair for me either ATM .

All, 

throwing stones in glass houses can cause more than slight issues. I cannot see an issue for transparency as to animal origin. At the same time I cannot see the reason that a "wildlife" department should have a reason to restrict, regulate or govern over animals that are clearly not wildlife.... They can never be released to the wild, they pose a potential threat to a wild population's genetic integrity and provide extra cost in both time and expense to enforce compliance. If reptiles that can be proved are of captive bred origin why should there be a need to regulate their keeping. The said enforcement personal rather than chasing down clerical errors could concentrate on real crime of poaching and smuggling. Less paperwork for both sides and easier.


----------



## longqi (Apr 22, 2014)

champagne said:


> Im not saying it is there but the purist love to bash on jags and claim they are a cork screwing which isn't the case... And how many jags have you kept that are over 10 years old?



I have never owned any jags except for 2 that were given to me about 5 yrs ago in a futile attempt to fix neuro
But I have seen the original jags from Jan Engels and handled hundreds of others in Aus US Europe and Asia

I am the first to admit they are gorgeous
If they didnt have problems I would have some

But with so many top quality neuro free morphs being developed I dont think I will ever think seriously about owning any in future
Until and unless we find a way to know what is going on inside the head of a snake with neuro I could not bring myself to encourage any jag breeder to breed more by owing one


----------



## cement (Apr 26, 2014)

eipper said:


> At the same time I cannot see the reason that a "wildlife" department should have a reason to restrict, regulate or govern over animals that are clearly not wildlife.... They can never be released to the wild, they pose a potential threat to a wild population's genetic integrity and provide extra cost in both time and expense to enforce compliance. If reptiles that can be proved are of captive bred origin why should there be a need to regulate their keeping. The said enforcement personal rather than chasing down clerical errors could concentrate on real crime of poaching and smuggling. Less paperwork for both sides and easier.



I know Scott, it is the age old question here eh?
Basically the reason as I see it as to why they regulate etcetc, is just simply because they get income from doing it, no more no less, it is their bread and butter. The reason as to not spending more time chasing the bad guys..... no income, and resource sucking.
If they got the right the right bloke in at the top though, they could (in theory) make craploads more money from fining the prosecuted bad guys.........but then by doing that, they probably realise that sooner or later even that source of income would dry up if they did it right.
So, its all to hard and they fall back on what they have in place!
And to the politicians that know and care squat about wildlife and natural heritage, it is easy to show that they are doing something of value, though we know different.


----------



## PilbaraPythons (Apr 26, 2014)

Just maybe the DEC think that hybrids and other rubbish are indeed some degree of threat to wild populations if they should escape.


----------



## ThatGuy (Apr 26, 2014)

I thought it would be less likely that a hybrid could cause major damage to an ecosystem should it escape. Wouldn't it fail to survive and perish due to being ill equipped for the environment around it before it could breed or do any damage in the wild? I admit I am relatively inexperienced, but if you took a diamond python and released it into the desert would it not simply perish as evolution gave it the tools to deal only with the climes and habitat of the South Eastern parts of Australia? Similarly wouldn't a hybrid, having potentially conflicting instincts from the combination of breeds in its parent specimens fail in the wild also? I guess there are instances where hybrids may occur in the wild but this would be called evolution or adaptation in a science context if the product of the mating pair were to survive and thrive in the wild. As far as the rumors it could be that people who are avidly against creating hybrids deliberately are creating and using these as scare tactics to discourage people who do it "experimentally". Just my opinion.


----------



## cement (Apr 26, 2014)

I think the one thing that does get a little overlooked is the fact that yes they are 'pet' snakes with no conservation value, but these pets snakes are well equipped to survive in this country once they escape. They don't know they are just pets. Crossed sub species in my humble opinion have more reason to be able to survive. Possibly the same with hybrids.
I have pulled obviously crossed subs out of the wild, but wether they were hatched in the wild or escaped is completely unknown, one thing for sure though is that they were suffering no ill effects at the time of capture.
On the note regarding out of area pythons doing ok or not, in areas that they are not originally from goes, it is my experience that yes, they can do well, and I have seen many cases to prove it.

One good example is a proserpine carpet, captive bred here on the Central Coast, found here on the Central Coast of NSW, re-united with its owner, identified as the same snake by photos, 6 years after its escaped date. I also pulled an 8ft prossie out of a roof here on the Central Coast in the middle of mating with a large female diamond.

I also know of a breeder breeding captive diamonds quite easily in outdoor cages up on the Atherton tablelands.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Apr 30, 2014)

I find it interesting that some individuals feel that producing hybrids isn’t “truly illegal”. If it is contrary to the gazetted regulations covering the hobby in a given state or territory, then it is illegal. The fact that a percentage of people are happy to take advantage of the various departments’ severe limitations in policing the hobby does not make it legal. I really like them and its exciting doing it to see if you can make it work and then see what amazing new snakes you can produce, does not make it legal. The fact you can get away with it, does not make it legal.

The problem is those who stick within the rules and are 100% legal, are the ones who stand to lose out. As has been mentioned, hybrid origin animals are off-loaded as species specific so they can be sold in the system. If people kept all their hybrid animals and did not sell them into the system one might be able to turn a blind eye. If pigs could fly. IF...

We have the argument legalise, that will allow registration of what it is. So what how do you register the offspring of a hybrid and a species? And that is only the first generation. There dodgy backyard breeders already passing of one species as another to unsuspecting buyers. They would have an absolute field day with hybrids. Not to mention the black market.

It is a hallmark of humanity that the more people are given, the more they tend to want. I’d warrant that if hybrids are made legal, yet another illegal aspect of keeping will arise to take its place.

Blue


----------



## andynic07 (Apr 30, 2014)

Bluetongue1 said:


> I find it interesting that some individuals feel that producing hybrids isn’t “truly illegal”. If it is contrary to the gazetted regulations covering the hobby in a given state or territory, then it is illegal. The fact that a percentage of people are happy to take advantage of the various departments’ severe limitations in policing the hobby does not make it legal. I really like them and its exciting doing it to see if you can make it work and then see what amazing new snakes you can produce, does not make it legal. The fact you can get away with it, does not make it legal.
> 
> The problem is those who stick within the rules and are 100% legal, are the ones who stand to lose out. As has been mentioned, hybrid origin animals are off-loaded as species specific so they can be sold in the system. If people kept all their hybrid animals and did not sell them into the system one might be able to turn a blind eye. If pigs could fly. IF...
> 
> ...


There is some that think it is "truly legal" and then others that think there is no way to prove subspecies crosses. I think the rule should be removed and these crosses named on paperwork so it does not ever effect the pure animal. I also think that you are forgetting about the word mutation from many legislations which in my eyes could refer to hypo , albino or any other mutation that is openly bred. I do not have a problem with these mutations either but think the legislation needs to be changed to reflect this. I am sure it was first created to stop all but what is considered wild type breeding but which may have been good in theory but as we know there are many different wild colour types from different regions and many mutations that can occur in the wild.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Apr 30, 2014)

I deliberately did not mention mutations, as I see them as very different issues. Artificial selection may achieve a similar looking snake to one produced through hybridisation, but the genetic profiles of the two snakes would be vastly different. 

With artificial selection you are choosing individuals on the basis of just a few of genes that control colour and/or pattern. In order of magnitude, the fraction of genes involved would be less than 10[SUP]-3[/SUP]. Whether it be a species or subspecies and whether it has undergone selective breeding, been line bred or resulted from inbreeding, you would still be dealing with the same species or subspecies. That is a big difference to the mongrel animals produced by hybridising.

As I stated, I believe legalising hybrid breeding will make the situation worse and not better. That is based on the reasons I gave. In addition, if overseas experience is anything to go by, with the difficulty in sourcing purebred species of carpets and such, we are better off maintaining the current system that prohibits hybridising. 

One rationale that frequently proffered is that it is happening anyway, so it would better to legalise as this would get it out in the open where it can be regulated. This argument appears sound and compelling. The same argument can be applied to many regulated activities. Just about everyone on the road speeds when they can so why not lift the speed limits by 5 or 10 km/hr. Sounds reasonable enough. The same argument has been with respect to legalising recreational drugs. They are out there, being used by huge numbers every day. If they were legalised at least the authorities could control what substances and strengths are actually in them. Again, it sounds reasonable.

There are two legal recreational drugs, tobacco and alcohol, which together, either directly or indirectly, kill more Australians than anything else. Speed is one of the major contributing factors to our road toll of around 1400 deaths per year – and that is with seat belts, air bags and crumple zones. What may appear reasonable on the surface is not necessarily reasonable when more closely scrutinised.

I think we might just have to agree to disagree on that one *Andy*. 

Blue


----------



## Senator358 (Apr 30, 2014)

Far out blue. You say exactly what I want to say but so much more eloquently. lol 
The only comment that I will make is that I completely agree!

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk


----------



## andynic07 (Apr 30, 2014)

[MENTION=20726]Bluetongue1[/MENTION] I really think that there is enough hard core pure line enthusiasts around in Australia that even if hybridisation was legalised then pure lines would be maintained. I do not think an analogy between something that can harm a person and something as harmless as snake breeding is fair. I also am not confusing or comparing mutations and hybrids but more pointing out that both are illegal to do. I do see your point nut as you say agree to disagree.


----------



## TrueBlue (Apr 30, 2014)

Breeding hypos and albinos of pure blood species or sub-species is not illegal in QLD Andy. I have spoken to the dept about this. As long as it is a naturally occurring mutation they have no problems with it.
Hypos are a very common mutation found in quite a number of wild reptiles, and relatively common in some species ie, coastals, bredli, etc.


----------



## geckodan (Apr 30, 2014)

Correct Rob, those mutations that can be demonstrated to be common in the wild or documented as the offspring of a wild caught animal (aka Blondie's offspring) can not be discriminated against by the legislation. This has been confirmed in talks with senior EPA officers when establishing what their definition of a mutation was.


----------



## cement (Apr 30, 2014)

Yeah, thats right... and its pretty fair to say that there aren't any/many morphs in captivity (from pure locality) that haven't occurred in the wild. We as hobby breeders are way behind natural occurring morphology, the animals have the genes!
Just because we get a hypo, or a reduced in a clutch doesn't mean its a first. There are plenty of striped pythons in the wild, the chances of us finding rare morphs in the wild is, well rare, because of the nature of the animals.


----------



## andynic07 (Apr 30, 2014)

TrueBlue said:


> Breeding hypos and albinos of pure blood species or sub-species is not illegal in QLD Andy. I have spoken to the dept about this. As long as it is a naturally occurring mutation they have no problems with it.
> Hypos are a very common mutation found in quite a number of wild reptiles, and relatively common in some species ie, coastals, bredli, etc.


Thanks for clarifying that but what does this actually cover off on and would it cover multiple mutation variations? Also could you argue that all mutations could actually occur in the wild or even sub species crosses such as coastal/diamond crosses.


----------



## TrueBlue (Apr 30, 2014)

Coastals and Diamonds cannot ever naturally cross in the wild as they live in different parts of the country. The intergrade form seperates the two. Intergrades are not crosses they are a natural occouring form of carpet.


----------



## andynic07 (Apr 30, 2014)

TrueBlue said:


> Coastals and Diamonds cannot ever naturally cross in the wild as they live in different parts of the country. The intergrade form seperates the two. Intergrades are not crosses they are a natural occouring form of carpet.



I did realise that intergrades weren't cross breeds but thought that there were coastals that lived at the top end of the diamond territory. I do not have any herping experience in these areas so am just going off roughly drawn maps without much detail. Is there any carpet sub species that live adjacent to another?


----------



## TrueBlue (Apr 30, 2014)

The carpets that live at the top end of what is classified as pure Diamond territory,(just north of Newcastle), are intergrades not coastals. Once you get just North of Coffs Habour you are in pure coastal territory.


----------



## andynic07 (Apr 30, 2014)

I hope this link does not get removed but it shows that a lot of the carpet sub species edge on each other and some overlap which I would think in these areas sub species cross breeding would exist. Now I have not got nearly enough field herping in any of these areas to verify or deny that the maps are correct and have no other option than to believe them until proven otherwise.

Morelia S. mcdowelli


----------



## junglepython2 (Apr 30, 2014)

andynic07 said:


> I hope this link does not get removed but it shows that a lot of the carpet sub species edge on each other and some overlap which I would think in these areas sub species cross breeding would exist. Now I have not got nearly enough field herping in any of these areas to verify or deny that the maps are correct and have no other option than to believe them until proven otherwise.
> 
> Morelia S. mcdowelli



From the same page you linked which backs up TrueBlue's point.

"Note that the distribution map is a very rough guide only, in some areas there are intergrades between the subspecies, and snakes from those areas may be hard to categorize as they may have characteristics of more than one subspecies."

The carpet python complex is pretty much a continuum with the possible exception of the bredli and south western varieties. There is no magic line where one subspecies ends and another starts it's a gradual transition.


----------



## andynic07 (Apr 30, 2014)

junglepython2 said:


> From the same page you linked which backs up TrueBlue's point.
> 
> "Note that the distribution map is a very rough guide only, in some areas there are intergrades between the subspecies, and snakes from those areas may be hard to categorize as they may have characteristics of more than one subspecies."
> 
> The carpet python complex is pretty much a continuum with the possible exception of the bredli and south western varieties. There is no magic line where one subspecies ends and another starts its is a gradual transition.


So you are more saying that they are all the same and should be able to be bred with each other? I have read someone stating that DNA wise they are all the same on the east coast and going on that point plus yours and Trueblue's about there being intergeade zones where the slow transition is happening and no set stopping point why can they not breed? What is an intergrade classed as and how do you tell an intergrade from the point the change occurs from diamond to intergrade from a pure diamond? Also there is a lot of discussion around about the colours of diamond pythons changing from the top of their distribution to the bottom, why do we really break up capers when there is such a gradual change from one to the other?


----------



## junglepython2 (Apr 30, 2014)

They are not all the same, they have evolved differently to suit their varying environmental conditions, though there is continual gene flow between the different forms. There is just no magic point where one form changes into another. 

Taxonomy tries to fit things neatly into boxes with species and subspecies but in reality things aren't that simple. Some taxonomists split the subspecies/species while others lump them all together, at the end of the day they are trying to use a simple classification system to classify something that can't really be correctly classified.

The diamonds and coastals are likely described as they are as their range falls within the two major capital cities in morelia east coast range. (Sydney and Brisbane). If the first fleet first landed at Port Macquarie or somewhere else in the "intergrade" zone things may well have been described differently.


----------



## andynic07 (Apr 30, 2014)

Basically you are telling me that they are different but the same. That there is no point that we can say the change happens but it is wrong to cross breed. Taxonomy is the only way we can call something different but it is not fit for the purpose. We choose to use taxonomy to classify things and then use these names to differentiate what we can and can't breed together but this taxonomy does not have set boundaries so how are we supposed to follow it when breeding? I would like to forget the word intergrade for a second and ask people what they would class one as and what they are classed as on paperwork and also what can you breed them with because "technically they border on two other species and depending on where they live may encounter and breed naturally with either one.


----------



## ThatGuy (Apr 30, 2014)

Are they in-fact breeding with each other? or are they simply showing evolutionary traits that have allowed them to adapt to the cross-over between two different habitats? I guess that either pure may breed with the same intergrade as it sits close to both populations but wouldn't necessarily be breeding directly with the pure. This is mostly an educated opinion based on the arguments I have read throughout this thread but I don't know if there is a reconciled approach that would suit and explain either arguments. Kind of like Christians say God put humans here and science says we evolved from monkeys, why couldn't god have decided to trigger the evolution?

EDIT:

As I have a lot of time on my hands lately I actually will look around and have a full-on read throughout the web on this topic and see what I might scratch up. Not saying I will find anything that hasn't already been covered here or find info that someone here doesn't already know but I am honestly interested now.


----------



## junglepython2 (Apr 30, 2014)

It comes down to your views on cross breeding Andynic, some people think it's fine to cross a jungle python from Mission Beach with one from Palmerston while others don't. (locale cross) Some have no issues with crossing a diamond with a jungle while others do. (subspecies cross) while others will happily cross a jungle with a GTP (species cross). 

What is ok and what isn't comes down to personal opinions and poorly worded definitions and classifications that vary wildly between the states.


----------



## andynic07 (Apr 30, 2014)

junglepython2 said:


> It comes down to your views on cross breeding Andynic, some people think it's fine to cross a jungle python from Mission Beach with one from Palmerston while others don't. (locale cross) Some have no issues with crossing a diamond with a jungle while others do. (subspecies cross) while others will happily cross a jungle with a GTP (species cross).
> 
> What is ok and what isn't comes down to personal opinions and poorly worded definitions and classifications that vary wildly between the states.


That is my point that the rules need to be changed. I really don't care what others breed but would like the choice to buy pure or not , buy cross breeds or not and buy mutations or not rather than have that taken away from me. I believe most of the rules about this are created on a false premise of conservation of the species which nearly everyone on this site knows is never going to happen because nobody can prove purity to enough of a degree to warrant the release of a captive snake. I own mainly "pure" animals apart from the cross bred diamond/coastal but think a lot of the cross breeds and mutations available are wonderful to look at and for the hobby with the amount of people that are drawn in due to them. I really think that it is ridiculous some of the animosity that is generated generally in these type of discussions from both sides of the fence. It has been good that this discussion has stayed civil and commend all that have participated thus far.


----------



## junglepython2 (Apr 30, 2014)

Changing the laws/rules now won't achieve much, the horse has well and truly bolted and there are already thousands of sub-species crosses out there, just about every jag is a subspecies cross which are readily available and that is unlikely to change. It also won't alter the animosity between purists and crossers that will always be there regardless.

The only thing the current rules/laws are keeping at bay are the species crosses. I'm sure there are a few getting around but they aren't openly advertised at least not at this stage and I hope it stays that way.


----------



## yellowbeard (May 1, 2014)

TrueBlue said:


> Breeding hypos and albinos of pure blood species or sub-species is not illegal in QLD Andy. I have spoken to the dept about this.As long as it is a naturally occurring mutation they have no problems with it.



Funny I thought all mutations were "naturally occurring", I would love to see it in writing from the QLD authorities.

- - - Updated - - -



andynic07 said:


> I also am not confusing or comparing mutations and hybrids but more pointing out that both are illegal to do. I do see your point nut as you say agree to disagree.



Both are NOT illegal in NSW. Hybrids are listed within the licencing, so if you breed hybrids in NSW they must be recorded as such, if not you can lose your licence.


----------



## GBWhite (May 1, 2014)

Andy,

Have a read of this old thread you might find it interesting. David Williams refers to a paper by Duncan Taylor of Flinders University regarding population structure and systematics of the Australian carpet pythons.

aussiepythons.com/forum/australian-snakes-37/carpet-python-systematics-shock-22888/

If your interested further you can read the paper by Googling either Duncan's name or Flinders University and go from there.

George.


----------



## andynic07 (May 1, 2014)

Thanks for that [MENTION=39076]GBWhite[/MENTION] I will have a read through the thread and the paper when I have a bit of time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Bluetongue1 (May 2, 2014)

A brief search failed to turn up the article referred to by George and I have not yet read the APS thread mentioned. When I have time I shall do so. In the meantime it seems appropriate to provide some clear background that will facilitate a clearer understanding of the system we have today and wherein the problems lie... 

Theophrastus (370-285 BC), a student of Aristotle, was the first recorded attempted to name all pants, beyond just those of importance to humans. The Greek influence led to the use of Latin names, Latin being the common language via which philosophers and other academics communicated.

It was not until the seventeenth century that people in Europe took up trying to name all organisms once again. The Latin based utilised by the Greeks were utilised as a starting point. Names used by the Greeks were based on a description of the plant’s characteristics. To differentiate a new closely related species, distinguishing adjectives were added to an existing name. This system led to some very unwieldy names. For example, the common carnation was known as “dianthus floribus solitaris, squamis calycinis subovatis brevissimis, corollis crenatis”. This means “the pink (a general name for the group),with solitary flowers, the scales of the calyx somewhat egg-shaped and very short, the petals scalloped. By the eighteenth century using this descriptive based system of naming, many names become too long and difficult to use.

Carl Linnaeus (aka Carl von Linne) was responsible for instigating two revolutionary changes (that we still use today) to the way in which organisms were named. Firstly, he introduced the idea of a nested hierarchical structure, based upon observable characteristics that are shared, and that reflect natural relationships. The Linnaean system classified nature starting with three kingdoms. Kingdoms were divided into classes which were, in turn, divided into orders, and thence into genera, which were divided into species. The second idea he introduced was to name living things using a similar system to the way Europeans named people, except doing it ‘surname’ first. This binomial naming system has a couple of rules regarding the allocation of names. The genus name (and all names further up in the hierarchy must all be unique i.e. once used on particular group they cannot be used for any other group of living things. Species names may only be used once in any given genus but there is no restriction on the number of genera in which it may be used.

Up until Darwin and Wallace, the prevailing religious doctrine was creationism in which it was believed that the Creator made each form of living thing separately. At the same time the earth and its climate were believed to be immutable i.e. the same as the ‘day’ they were created. So the only real problem anticipated with classifying a new species of living thing (based upon its observable physical attributes) was ensuring that it had not been classified already. 

Darwin, Wallace and Mendel, and those who have followed in their footsteps, threw a very large spanner in the works by determining that new species arise from pre-existing species through genetic change. Palaeontology and geomorphology have corroborated the notion of major changes to the physical and life structures of the earth. 

There are a number of ways in which speciation (development of new species) can occur. One is breeding isolation. This normal occurs as a result of some form of geographical barrier that divides what was a freely breeding population, such a river changes course and creates an impassable valley, a mountain range, a wide body of water etc. Changes in behaviour, colour and/pattern and pheromones can also result in breeding isolation. Adaptive radiation is major driving force in speciation. As population spreads out geographically, sections of it adapt to the many varied ecological niches present. The proliferation of insect species in general and beetle species in particular is a prime example of adaptive radiation. Ctenotus and Lerista skinks are examples in Australian reptiles.

Genetic isolation does not have to be absolute. If the rate of gene flow between two populations is sufficiently reduced, these populations can develop along sufficient different lines to the point where separate species can develop. For example, there is a frog in the US that has a *Ì*-shape across the country. There 5 recognised populations *A*, *B*, *C*, *D* and *E*. Adjoining populations can breed readily as can two populations either side of another. However, Populations *A* and *E* are unable to produce viable offspring, despite the fact that these two populations occupy the most similar habitat.

So what are the issues confronting classification today?

Evolution is the development of a new species from pre-existing species. Because evolution is an on-going process, 

While there are plenty of “end points” present as the result of evolution there also a lot of “still in the process”. While we might like to envisage evolution as a clear, one-way direction, this is not the reality. Evolution is a product of the environment and subject to changes as the environment changes. It is influenced by the unpredictable occurrence of mutations, random genetic drift and a few other factors, depending. Evolutionary influences will vary through time and with geographic location. As a result, different populations can exhibit specific genetic markers unique to them. At the same, the division between two genetically distinct populations may be cline (genetic change with distance) rather than a distinct separation as the result of breeding isolation (for whatever reason). 

While the current classification system presents difficulties with certain groups and the taxonomists’ term of ‘’species complex” does nothing in real terms to help, the usefulness of the system cannot be over stated.

So while it may be a case of arbitrarily choosing a point of division, like choosing where red ends and orange begins on the visible spectrum, this does invalidate the immense value of a system of categorising living thing. Simply because one colour grades into the next does not make the colour classification scheme of ROYGBIV any less useful.


Blue 

PS Sorry abut the length but I don't know how to put in more than one post at a time.


----------



## ShaunMorelia (May 2, 2014)

Blue, that has to be the best post in APS history.
Thank you for posting such quality information.

Shaun.


----------



## GBWhite (May 2, 2014)

Basically, what DNA analysing has proven is that all of the Morelia spilota group (including Diamonds (M. spilota spilota), Jungles (M. cheynei), Coastals (M. mcdowelli). Murray/Darlings (M. metcalfei) & Northerns (M. variagata) are all the same snake. So anyone that wants to breed them with each other is not crossing species or subspecies, just colour variations.

There are no geographic barriers to isolate the eastern and northern populations in Australia. 

It appears they are so successful across the Australian Continent due to their genetic ability to produce colour patterns relevant to their survival within habitats, indeed micro-habitats within habitats.

Further it has long been argued that morphological taxonomic methods used and accepted to describe new species of Australian reptiles and/or elevate sub-species to species level is too simple. It is my understanding that this was the reason Wells and Wellington undertook and produced "A synopsis of the Class Reptilia in Australia" 1983. It was too prove a point...and they did!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've copied & pasted Dave Williams' post to make it easy.

Hi all,

In response to a question about carpet python _Morelia spp_ systematics in a PM today I gave the following reply which on reflection might interest quite a few people here:

_
The latest work on carpet pythons will raise more than a couple of eyebrows I think you'll find ...

Essentially Taylor et al reported to the 2003 ASH Conference that analysis of mtDNA control region sequences, 22 allozyme loci and eight microsatellite loci from 350 snakes sampled from 119 locations throughout the range of the complex in Australia and New Guinea demonstrated (with good correlation between all three techniques) that there *ARE ONLY THREE VALID TAXA IN THE COMPLEX* ... :shock: 

These being:

Morelia bredli (Central Australia)
Morelia spilota imbricata (South-western WA/Eyre Peninsula)
*Morelia spilota spilota (All eastern and northern forms)*

The abstract reference is

Taylor D, Rawlings L, Donnellan SC, Goodman AE. (2003) Population structure of the highly polytypic Australian carpet pythons (Reptilia: Morelia spilota) Proceedings of the 2003 Meeting of the Australian Society of Herpetologists.

The actual paper will probably be in print sometime this year.
_

I imagine that this will come as a big shock to a lot of folks - no more _M.s.variegata, M.s.cheynei, M.s.mcdowelli_ etc etc ....

Cheers


David​


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_NoOne,

Studies of DNA establish whether or not a group of animals belong to one taxonomic unit (a genetically distinctive unique life form) or to two or more taxonomic units. Each taxonomic unit bears a single taxonomic designation - a name.

Taylor et al's work is strong evidence for concluding that all of the eastern Australian and northern Australian Morelia belong to just one taxonomic unit Morelia spilota spilota. Sure some of them look different - that means nothing.

Look at it this way ... Unless they happen to be biggotted, racist, [email protected]*mbag hitlerites :twisted: most people accept that the human race is comprised of a single taxonomic unit Homo sapiens with wide geographical variation in appearance but just one unique genome. The concept is simple, broadly accepted and proven fact.

So why should it be so hard to accept the fact that in terms of many other types of animals similar variations in appearance (for whatever reasons)... such as colour, body size ... occur despite the fact that the genome of all is one and the same.

This doesn't mean you can't keep referring to different forms by their regional colloquial names: 'jungles', 'diamonds', 'brissies', 'coastals' or whatever ... it just means that from a scientific name perspective they are all just going to be Morelia spilota spilota.

Those are the facts, and as more and more reliable DNA technology is developed and applied to these issues, expect more changes.

Cheers


Dave
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_The first of the species located and identified was Morelia spilota spilota (described by Lacepede 1804) from around the Sydney Sandstone region of it's distribution (translated = spotted morelia). It was not until 1842 when Grey located and identified a Morelia with a more varied colour pattern and based on this described it as M variegata. 

George.​


----------



## andynic07 (May 2, 2014)

Bluetongue1 said:


> A brief search failed to turn up the article referred to by George and I have not yet read the APS thread mentioned. When I have time I shall do so. In the meantime it seems appropriate to provide some clear background that will facilitate a clearer understanding of the system we have today and wherein the problems lie...
> 
> Theophrastus (370-285 BC), a student of Aristotle, was the first recorded attempted to name all pants, beyond just those of importance to humans. The Greek influence led to the use of Latin names, Latin being the common language via which philosophers and other academics communicated.
> 
> ...


Very good and informative post Mike but do you have a view on species or sub species crossing in regard to this information or are you just providing some useful information and history on classification?


----------



## Bluetongue1 (May 3, 2014)

*Andy*,
I am not keen to see native populations interfered with genetically. Inter-breeding of genetically separate or distinctive groups is of concern to me for that reason alone. If one could be guaranteed that no offspring or direct descendents would find their way into natural populations, then I would have no concerns even though it is of no interest to me. 

For myself, I had to resolve the issue of captive animals finding their way into natural populations where they don’t belong in order to justify widespread captive keeping of reptiles. As I have pointed out before, where one or two captive animals are introduced into a wild population from a widely differing geographic origin, the genes they contribute will be lost in within the space of a few generations. It is where ten or a dozen, or whatever it requires produce a self-sustaining population, are introduced that the genes can be propagated and spread. Given that natural selection will ultimately operate on these individuals and their progeny, those genes not suited to the given environment will ultimately be selected against. Secondly, there will be a large genetic overlap and the number of genes involved is miniscule in comparison to the sum total. 

When it comes to crossing different species, then that is a different ball game. If you have clearly different species from the one genus, or worse, inter-generic crosses, which are capable of breeding with wild types of one of the original parent species to produce viable and fertile offspring, then the potential for genetic pollution in natural populations becomes huge. This is why I believe it should remain as is and that responsible keepers should recognise the potential hazards and do nothing to encourage it. Whether the practice is very common or otherwise, you could bet London to a brick that legalisation will result in a proliferation of the activity.

Many people don’t seem to want to accept the fact that they have been given access to this group of native animals to keep as pets and along with that goes a responsibility to do their bit not to endanger these animals in the wild through their keeping. Clearly, I am of the opinion that they do have a responsibility.

Blue


----------



## Sdaji (May 3, 2014)




----------



## andynic07 (May 3, 2014)

Sorry if this is flogging a dead horse for you [MENTION=688]Sdaji[/MENTION] but I have one more question for [MENTION=20726]Bluetongue1[/MENTION].I can understand exactly what you are saying about inter species crosses getting out with the ability to breed with wild type and agree completely.My question is more about subspecies crosses, with evidence that they are the same mtDNA wise could you draw parallels to humans? I know they are completely different but humans are considered a single species and at one stage had isolated populations that developed different characteristics to suit their environment. Firstly is this the same thing and if so why is it not a problem with people but it is with carpet snakes?


----------



## champagne (May 3, 2014)

at the end of the day we all just keeping pets in boxes... if you want a snake that looks like a jungle (not that half of you would of even seen a wild jungle) then buy one that looks like a jungle. if a snake that has an exact apprence of a jungle in every way but has a % of Darwin in it what does it matter to a pet snake being kept in a box?


----------



## Jungle_Freak (May 3, 2014)

Thanks George . The defining post in this thread . Thumbs up to Dave W as well...

Also true hybrid should be prosecuted in all states ie GTP x carpet python or Water python x carpet type hybrids...




GBWhite said:


> Basically, what DNA analysing has proven is that all of the Morelia spilota group (including Diamonds (M. spilota spilota), Jungles (M. cheynei), Coastals (M. mcdowelli). Murray/Darlings (M. metcalfei) & Northerns (M. variagata) are all the same snake. So anyone that wants to breed them with each other is not crossing species or subspecies, just colour variations.
> 
> There are no geographic barriers to isolate the eastern and northern populations in Australia.
> 
> ...


----------



## zulu (May 3, 2014)

Problem with DNA analysis is that its similar between a gorilla and a human ,subspecies would appear as almost identical.
Animals will have similar DNA to survive evolution with small differences that have more impact ,such as a diamond python from the sydney area compared to a coastal carpet.


----------



## Gaboon (May 3, 2014)

Can the Irian Jaya Carpet blood be detected in Jags? Since that sub species arn't kept on licence and a Bredli cross diamond and others can't be bred in some states shouldn't it be illigal to breed sub species that arn't legally kept in Australia? How is irian jaya blood any diffirent from blood pythons etc they arnt legally kept, their introduced, not to mention non native Gtps. I'm not attacting people breeding non natives, breed them but theirs a point there. Exotics kept before the amnesty etc all little things that suggest that these people are just making it up as they go along. Why can't they work something out for basic exotics, Native crosses have been bred for decades and arnt breeding in the wild their is no problem. If you want pure animals buy only from reputable breeders that have an established name that care about the industry if everyone did that, back yard breeders wouldn't be able to sell them and they arn't selling very well. I think the lack of exotics and hybrids suggest that theirs nothing to crack down on and people just arn't breeding that much anymore creating less numbers and less morphs popping up which is how you get them, it's a numbers game like ball pythons and retics. Lack of morphs mean lack of numbers being bred, forcing people to have nothing to turn to or think of except hybrids because that's the only thing people can do. No one cares about producing line bred pure animals because they don't want to put the years in but those people will live those years anyway. 

How did the toads get in this country in the first place? Pets? People trying to breed them with green tree frogs? Maybe cane toads should have been on license, so they didnt excape into the wild and breed. Don't make me mention the fact that the sun will give out eventually.


----------



## andynic07 (May 3, 2014)

Gaboon said:


> Can the Irian Jaya Carpet blood be detected in Jags? Since that sub species arn't kept on licence and a Bredli cross diamond and others can't be bred in some states shouldn't it be illigal to breed sub species that arn't legally kept in Australia? How is irian jaya blood any diffirent from blood pythons etc they arnt legally kept, their introduced, not to mention non native Gtps. I'm not attacting people breeding non natives, breed them but theirs a point there. Exotics kept before the amnesty etc all little things that suggest that these people are just making it up as they go along. Why can't they work something out for basic exotics, Native crosses have been bred for decades and arnt breeding in the wild their is no problem. If you want pure animals buy only from reputable breeders that have an established name that care about the industry if everyone did that, back yard breeders wouldn't be able to sell them and they arn't selling very well. I think the lack of exotics and hybrids suggest that theirs nothing to crack down on and people just arn't breeding that much anymore creating less numbers and less morphs popping up which is how you get them, it's a numbers game like ball pythons and retics. Lack of morphs mean lack of numbers being bred, forcing people to have nothing to turn to or think of except hybrids because that's the only thing people can do. No one cares about producing line bred pure animals because they don't want to put the years in but those people will live those years anyway.
> 
> How did the toads get in this country in the first place? Pets? People trying to breed them with green tree frogs? Maybe cane toads should have been on license, so they didnt excape into the wild and breed. Don't make me mention the fact that the sun will give out eventually.



Cane toads were introduced by the government to control the cane beetle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Gaboon (May 3, 2014)

I know that Andy and further proves the point that the government has no clue. But the country has a great mind set and the people arn't idiots, I think they can handle them selfs, we arnt going to release boas into the forests of qld and we don't cull rattle snakes, we don't kill threated natives for sport or drive animals into extinction for the most part. I think Australia can handle abit more, including chipotle thanks.


----------



## Sdaji (May 3, 2014)

andynic07 said:


> Firstly is this the same thing and if so why is it not a problem with people but it is with carpet snakes?



Same thing. Difference is political opinion. For some reason we need to preserve the natural appearance of Carpet Pythons (even though we select them to make them look unnatural with stripes and albinism and more yellow and melanistic morphs... go figure) but the idea that we should conserve the purity of human races is a crime to have in your head, probably literally these days. No, it doesn't make sense, yes, it's a double standard (cue some politically-minded fanatic with ants in her pants to come up with a twisted attempt to rationalise it  ).

There are genetic differences between races/localities of Carpet Pythons, the fact that we can't detect them in the lab is just due to us not bothering to establish the protocols to do it, but it certainly is possible. To the rest of the world this issue is a storm in one of the tiniest tea cups ever to exist.

I'm not a fan of hybrids (or the fact that no one seems to know what the word means :lol: ), but there are probably more hybrid Carpets out there now than locality pure, and that's never going to change. The same is rapidly happening with Antaresia, and if multiple morphs pop up in Womas or Black-headed Pythons they'll go the same way... oh, but apparently that doesn't matter because no one has decided to put Womas or Black-headeds into different subspecies! :lol: I've always found it funny that hybridising is fine but suddenly becomes wrong if someone slaps a new name on something :lol: Funnier still, some even consider it natural because it could happen in the wild, until it gets a different name! A Carpet Python from Brisbane can't breed with one from Sydney. I suppose a Carpet Python from Cairns could breed with a Scrubby, but does that make it okay? Children's Pythons breed with Stimson's Pythons on either side of the magic line every year in the wild, but I'm guessing they'd somehow be considered 'bad hybrids' in captivity, while a NSW Stimmy could be bred with a WA Stimmy, and most people would consider that to be fine? Hey, I read a book and looked up the name, I know what I'm talking about! 

There is no way you can stop it (I must admit, some years ago when it was starting to happen I probably would have stopped it if I somehow could, and back then I probably had a few ants in my pants like most of the people in this thread seem to :lol: ), we just have to accept that, not because it's good or bad but because we have no alternative. People complained most about Carpet hybrids (or whatever the people who think they're too clever to call intersubspecific Carpet hybrids hybrids call them), and not surprisingly, all these obvious hybrid Carpets getting sold all over the country get labelled pure, (amusingly often not even as what they most closely resemble :lol: ). We can either have mudbloods labelled as pure, or we can accept them and label them as mud, but that only works if we don't put a higher dollar value on purity. I suppose it's fair to say that rationalising things like this isn't going to be the driving force behind decision making, so we're going to continue to see hybrids everywhere, often labelled as pure, and people complaining and suggesting unrealistic ways to deal with it.

Danny: So albino Carpets are okay in QLD because Blondie was wild caught? What if albinism pops up in some unrelated captive Jungles? What about my albino Death Adders? The first albino Northern Death Adders were born in captivity, does that make them somehow legally different from albino Common Death Adders? That would be A-grade insanity right there! Or, is that actually what they propose? Or is it sort of what they propose while it suits them, until someone points out an inconvenient mutation which doesn't fit with what they want? In most of these wildlife cases the law is engineered to fit convenience rather than sense, reason or function 

To anyone freaking about hybrids and their terrible ecological risk - A Darwin x coastal escaping in Brisbane is no worse than a pure Darwin escaping in Brisbane. Ideally it might be worth being strict on keeping species outside their own natural locality but within the range of conspecifics, but hey, who is going to regulate that (you'd be hard pressed finding people who even understood it! :lol: ).

To anyone worried about the incredible risk jags pose to 'the wild' - the jag mutation wouldn't survive long term in the wild, it would actually be removed more quickly than things like selectively bred high yellow in jungles, or stripes or many of the other things people select for without it being considered a problem. The fact that jag is a health/behaviour problem is the thing which would prevent it from spreading. If there was a strongly beneficial mutation, it probably would spread if it got out into the wild, yet ironically no one would be complaining about it being bred in captivity.

For the record, I don't like Carpets or have any plans to ever keep them again, and I don't really like jags, but I'm not going to get ants in my pants if someone else likes them.

For the most part, we'd struggle to stuff up wild populations if we tried. Sure, people keeping captive reptiles have introduced populations of Water Dragons to Melbourne (where they have a trivial impact) and you can find Tiger Snakes around Melbourne which aren't at all like the natural ones from the area, and I'm sure the same sort of thing happens all over the country around towns and cities where people keep herps, but the only way to avoid that is to ban all reptile keeping (which wouldn't be possible anyway). Hybrids don't make it any worse. While we have building developments bulldozing entire ecosystems out of existence, feral species eating or outcompeting populations of reptiles, an all the other actual problems which are concerning, it doesn't really make sense to get too fanatical about these issues. In some ways it sort of sucks for the captive population in that it's increasingly rare to see pure animals, but really, if you want to find a pure locality x Carpet it's not that difficult - there are enough enthusiasts keeping the lines pure even if others muddy the water. Which locality has been lost due to hybridising? If it still exists in the wild, does it really matter if we don't have pure ones in captivity? How many people do you know, including the 'hybrids are evil' crowd, who don't select against natural traits? Who wouldn't pick the most yellow or striped or placid or best feeding or albino or melanistic or otherwise best looking one? I noticed that even when I was a locality fanatic (and I still am a bit) - even I would want a prettier, friendlier, better feeding animal, so even I wasn't conserving the natural form, so really, what was the point of locality anyway? There really isn't any, but I still like it, just because I do. That's fine, but I don't have pants ants when someone else doesn't share my feelings.

...and yep, I just flogged the horse myself! :lol:


----------



## andynic07 (May 3, 2014)

[MENTION=688]Sdaji[/MENTION] Great post, this is exactly how I feel, I mainly own "pure" animals that have no real morphs but do not have a problem with whoever does and actually enjoy seeing some of them. I do own a subspecies carpet cross though and love it.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (May 6, 2014)

GBWhite said:


> Basically, what DNA analysing has proven is that all of the Morelia spilota group (including Diamonds (M. spilota spilota), Jungles (M. cheynei), Coastals (M. mcdowelli). Murray/Darlings (M. metcalfei) & Northerns (M. variagata) are all the same snake. So anyone that wants to breed them with each other is not crossing species or subspecies, just colour variations....
> ....George


It is interesting that study in question was made public in 2003 and yet has not been adopted by any of themain taxonomic institututions or authors. What I can tell you is there currently another genetic study being undertaken of the complex. 

*Andy*,
Apologies for the delay but my PC crashed. Comparing races in human and sub-species in snakes is not helpful. There were initially 9 geographic races identified, using features such as skin colour, body form, hair type, head shape (as viewed from above, ear wax type, blood types, facial features (such as brow ridge, slope of forehead, shape of nose, presence of absence of epicanthic eyefold) and a few more I cannot remember. Other anthropologist split humans into anwhere from 40 to 70 races, or there abouts. bear in mind this is before large scale movements of other than Europeans around the globe. When invsestigated more thoroughly, it became evident that each races had clines (gradual changes in features of species from one place to another) within had clines across the distribution and particulaly where one race gave way to another. "Typical" individuals were more an averge than an accurate representative of all members and so the concept was abandoned by most anthropologists.

Racism was mentionred by is the belief that a given 'race' of humansis superior. Defining the dominant race has been based on single attributes, such as skin colour, country of origin, religion, ethnicity or a combination of a couple of these. Clearly the concepts of race and racism are entirely separate and should not be confused. Similar rationale as discussed already for potential release of subspecies and related species.

While I am not infavour of crossing subspecies of a given species, it is less likely they will create problems if people do the right thing. For example, not dumping all the individuals from one or more clutches that have not coloured up as desired after 6 or whatever number of shed.

*Gaboon*,
I am unsure how you know what is not breeding in the wild. 
Whilst your belief in the mindset and responsible behaviour of Australians is very admirable, there are numerous threads on APS that show that is not always the case. I shall be happy to point to some out if you want. With respect to "not driving animals into extinction" you might find it worthwhile to read recent articles by Professors John Woinarski or Corey Bradshaw and others, as well a particularly relevant article by TIm Lowe on the Christmas Island Pipistrelle (a bat). Before blindly bagging the release of cane toads in this country I would suggest you familiarise yourself with the historical realities of the release of the cane toad. Particularly the other options available in 1935 and the information they had to work with, mostly from Hawaii. That was coupled with political interference from the then very powerful cane growers group.


Blue


----------



## GBWhite (May 6, 2014)

Bluetongue1 said:


> It is interesting that study in question was made public in 2003 and yet has not been adopted by any of themain taxonomic institututions or authors. What I can tell you is there currently another genetic study being undertaken of the complex.
> 
> I think you'll find that in his latest "Reptiles and Amphibians of Australia" Cogger recognises three sub species;
> M spilota s - coastal NSW
> ...


----------



## eipper (May 6, 2014)

George,

Wuster et al 2004 show in their snakes across the torressian strait paper that Acanthophis in Australia is made up of 7 sp with at least another in PNG. The same paper did not sample a number of areas in Papua and Indonesia either and stated that further revision is required to ascertain exactly how many sp there are. 

Cheers
scott


----------



## GBWhite (May 6, 2014)

George


----------



## Bluetongue1 (May 6, 2014)

*Sdaji,*
What is your point about preserving natural forms and breeding for morphs at the same time? Different people want different things and they are certainly not mutually exclusive. There are several different ways to develop morphs, which you conveniently did not mention. 

How can you get a "double-standard" out of comparing what is done with humans to what is done with animals. I don't think anyone would agree with keeping humans captive and fattening them up to be killed and eaten. Is that a "double standard" too?

As I mentioned in my previous post, the concept of human geographical races was debunked decades ago. To state that it is probably "illegal these days" to even think about it, indicates you are confusing races with racism. eating. The meanings have absolutely nothing income other than the same stem word to indicate a group. 

There is a validity in what you say about the taxonomic changes in levels (not simply names as stated) being able to alter what's legal and and what is not in some states and territories. The same is true of new IUCN listing. On the odd occasion when it does happen, it does present problems for both keepers and the authorities. Perhaps the authorities view scrapping that part of the system as throwing the baby out with the bathwater. 

I cannot agree that the laws in wildlife cases are mostly "engineered to fit convenience, rather than sense reason or function". The most convenient law for the relevant authorities would be to ban all keeping. Next would be to ban all breeding through compulsory sterilisation before you can acquire any animal. The systems are intially designed to be functional for authorities while allowing keeping and nreeding of these native animals as pets. This tends to skew much decision making towards conservatism and control. As keepers and enthusiast we need to work towards trying to achieve sensible change. Genera bagging of the laws might make people feel better but it contributes nothing constructive to that end, particularly where it is not accurate.

on the su bject of change, what concern me most of all is the existence of highly organised anti-pet keeping groups that are driven by zealots and who politically savvy . They even have their members occupying seats in governments in order to push their agendas. These are are true adversaries in my opinion.

"For the most part we'd struggle to stuff up wild populations if we tried." I will assume you are talking about genetic pollution only here. This can happen and has happened elswhoverseas. Once again, I will provide some examples if you want them. It would be desirable not add Australia's name to the list, if avoidable. While I done see interspecific subspecies crosses as a likely candidate in Australia inter-generic crosses, and to a much lesser degree inter-specific crosses, have the potential to do so.

There were general things about your post I found disappointing...
I assume it was primarily geared to subspecies crosses with a species. However you used the "hybrid" several times and the term "crosses" with any qualification as what they specifically referred to.
It is evident from much of what you said that you have not read the entire thread before posting.
Words such as "fanatical" carry a clear connotation of lacking reason. Given the rational and logical manner in which most of the discussion has been conducted, I take exception to that.
Similarly with your use of the prase "hybrids are evil crowd". The word "evil" denotes that a moral judgment has been made. Morals are based on subjective personal values rather than objective rationalisation. Even the word "crowd" connotes a mob rather than a select group. 


Blue


----------



## andynic07 (May 6, 2014)

[MENTION=20726]Bluetongue1[/MENTION] , what are your thoughts on why the law is there in the first place? My thoughts are the initial thought was to preserve pure animals for future conservation purposes but in reality this can never be done because there is no proof of lineage.


----------



## Retic (May 6, 2014)

andynic07 said:


> [MENTION=20726]Bluetongue1[/MENTION] , what are your thoughts on why the law is there in the first place? My thoughts are the initial thought was to preserve pure animals for future conservation purposes but in reality this can never be done because there is no proof of lineage.



Yes that may well have been the initial thinking, apart from having no way of verifying lineage there is also the disease issue. History has shown us having pure lines only does not mean you wont be hit by devastating deadly diseases.


----------



## RoryBreaker (May 6, 2014)

Bluetongue1 said:


> on the su bject of change, what concern me most of all is the existence of highly organised anti-pet keeping groups that are driven by zealots and who politically savvy . They even have their members occupying seats in governments in order to push their agendas. These are are true adversaries in my opinion.
> 
> Blue



Well said Blue,
i totally agree. These groups ( PETA, Animals Australia, RSPCA etc.. ) are well versed in rolling out the "influence peddlers" to all levels of government. 

Reptile keepers are the easiest of targets for these mobs, it's a result of the fact that we have no real representation to politicians, whereas some of their other targets have well connected defences/organisations.

i see elsewhere the Victorian bureau of animal welfare is asking for input into a cage sizing/keeping requirements survey......the cynic in me is highly suspicious of the motives behind that.

Cheers


----------



## longqi (May 7, 2014)

RoryBreaker said:


> Well said Blue,
> 
> i see elsewhere the Victorian bureau of animal welfare is asking for input into a cage sizing/keeping requirements survey......the cynic in me is highly suspicious of the motives behind that.
> 
> Cheers



Hopefully they will have learned from the mess in NSW and keep it simple
length of snake= minimum size= length x depth x height
with variations for arboreal species


----------



## Bluetongue1 (May 9, 2014)

GBWhite said:


> ....I think you'll find that in his latest "Reptiles and Amphibians of Australia" Cogger recognises three sub species;
> M spilota s - coastal NSW
> M s imbricata -s/w WA
> M s variegata - rest of the range....


Cogger's has not adopted the recommendations of the 2003 paper:



GBWhite said:


> ....I find it quite odd how zoologists define species on morphological traits yet the same analysis doesn't apply when it come to humans....


It does apply. Morphology was used to classify _Homo sapiens neanderthalensis_ as a separate subspecies, _Homo erectus_ and others as separate species and used in the original delineation of human geographical races. It was also used to later discard the notion of human geographical races . Genetic technology has supported the decisions made but was not responsible for them being made in the first place.



GBWhite said:


> ....From the literature I've read it appears all humans are classified as Homo sapiens because we share 99.99% DNA and there is no specific gene that can define a person's race (species/subspecies). This is despite the fact that black Africans are morphologically different from Asians who are again morphologically different to Europeans. Apparently DNA analysis can determine a person's morphological make up (ie, skin colour, eye and nose shape, facial features etc) and provide an incite as to their ancestry but cannot define between races.....


Humans have been extensively genetically studied. The fact that they can identify between certain alleles is not surprising. No-one is saying that humans don't vary around the globe. What is being said is that the variations were not fixed enough to warrant application of the term race. 

For example, skin colour seems to demonstrate a definite huge difference between the supposed races. Just how important is skin colour? If you put an albino from Mediterranean Europe next to an albino from southern India, how different would they appear then? How consistent is skin colour within the nominated races? Compare the skin colour of northern Italians to that of southern Italian... and that is within the one country. 

The history behind the term "race" is also responsible for confusing its meaning and application in biology. 



GBWhite said:


> ....In comparison the taxanomic methods used to describe species of other animals is based on morphological traits. Go figure....


Historically, taxonomists only had morphology to use in describing the differences between different types of living things. This has changed. Nowadays species are primarily delineated on the basis of genetics and then taxonomists look for consistent morphological differences. Morphological features allow visual discrimination between the species, especially in the field, so naturally enough it is this information that goes into the field guides and natural history books. 

Blue

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



andynic07 said:


> @Bluetongue1 , what are your thoughts on why the law is there in the first place? My thoughts are the initial thought was to preserve pure animals for future conservation purposes but in reality this can never be done because there is no proof of lineage.


A Keeper's licence in WA states: "No species or subspecies kept under the provisions of the licence is to be allowed to interbreed under any circumstances." 

Subspecies with a conservation or particular protection status (or awaiting it) are not allowed to be kept. However there are others members of the species which are on the keeping list. The authorities want to be able to distinguish between the subspecies in a group to ensure the correct ones are being kept when checked. The focus of the keeping list here is initially to be on local (WA) animals. So those subspecies mainly or widely found in WA can be listed while other members of the species occuring mainly occuring elswhere will not be at this point in time. 

For example, Tiliqua robuta robusta, the common Bobtail (Westrn Shingleback) is allowed to be kept. T. r. konowi on Rottnest Island is classified as vulnerable and not allowed to be kept. T.r. aspera, the Eastern Shingleback, only occurs in a small section of of the south-east corner of WA and is not on the keeping list. (A fourth species T. r. palarra has a limited distribution around the Shark Bay area and is not on the keeping list either - but I know nothing about).

So the the regulation is seen as both a management tool and a conservation tool.

Blue


----------

