Keeping it pure?

[Origamislice]

my opinian is if they dont breed naturally then dont breed them, i would breed a diamond with a coastal as it happens naturally but not a diamond with a jungle, also i one saw a pic of a gtp/coastal and it didnt look good.

 

[GeckoJosh]

If you look at Oedura marmorata for example then knowing locality is crucial as each locale is so very different from the next, i guess it comes down how well described each species is in some cases, but like i said earlier my opinion differs between species

 

[nathancl]

kings rocks monitors are very variable within their small range.

 

[-Matt-]

my opinian is if they dont breed naturally then dont breed them, i would breed a diamond with a coastal as it happens naturally but not a diamond with a jungle, also i one saw a pic of a gtp/coastal and it didnt look good.

But would you breed a Coastal from Cape York with a Diamond from Gosford?

I prefer to have my animals locality specific, but in saying that the majority of their locals are unknown. I HAVE to have my Antaresia locality specific , this makes them more interesting to me as they represent the wild animals found in those areas (its purely for my interests sake and nothing else). I would also prefer to only keep elapids that have come from a known local.
I am also very interested in morphs (stripes, RP, etc) but have a 0% interest in hybrids. I see myself as a person that has room in their collection for both locality specific and special looking 'morph' animals...but as long as they are an animal that can be found in nature I am happy. However I also am against crossing species from different states/territories - for example WA Black-heads with QLD Black-heads or QLD Waters with NT waters, to me this is mixing bloodlines and creating animals that are not true to nature. I know this kind of contradicts my liking of morphs but morphs can still be created without mixing animals from one state with another.

 

[Jungletrans]

Another reason why l like Darwin Pythons , as far as l know they all come from the same area but can differ wildly in colour and pattern .

 

[Retic]

That is true but that area is huge. Darwin Python is really a misnomer, they should be referred to as North Western Carpets.

Another reason why l like Darwin Pythons , as far as l know they all come from the same area but can differ wildly in colour and pattern .

 

[JasonL]

Locality pure is what I would prefer, though I don't trust many people as far as localities are concerned and as it's against the law in most areas to poach animals the vast majority of my collection is just odd and sods. I will take it a step further and say I would rather keep WC or 1st gen CB locality pure animals, as multiple generations of selective breeding pretty much desintergrates the whole idea of locality, at least to me it does anyway..... though as I said, the reptile keeping system in place atm over most states doesn't allow for my ideas to be legal.
Saying that I am still happy to see various morphs and unusually patterned animals in collections.... but there's still a line there somewhere to be drawn, I just can't find the pencil, nor draw a straight line.

 

[Waterrat]

I would say there are two types of locality specific reptiles that of interest to breeders:
1/ Those species found only in small, specific habitats, e.g. RSPs, GTPs, Nactus galgajuga, etc., where you know the animals couldn't have come from anywhere else, therefore the locality is guaranteed (unless out-bred by some idiot).

2/ Animals that are morphologically typical (with little or no variation) to specific habitats or localities. e.g. Chappell Island tigers, Broad-headed snakes, etc..

To have a locality specific Atherton or Julatten carpet or Mareeba taipan is absolutely meaningless to me unless you working on some re-introduction / conservation program. As mentioned above, captive breeding diminishes specific locality qualities and fitness.

 

[JasonL]

I would say there are two types of locality specific reptiles that of interest to breeders:
1/ Those species found only in small, specific habitats, e.g. RSPs, GTPs, Nactus galgajuga, etc., where you know the animals couldn't have come from anywhere else, therefore the locality is guaranteed (unless out-bred by some idiot).

2/ Animals that are morphologically typical (with little or no variation) to specific habitats or localities. e.g. Chappell Island tigers, Broad-headed snakes, etc..

To have a locality specific Atherton or Julatten carpet or Mareeba taipan is absolutely meaningless to me unless you working on some re-introduction / conservation program. As mentioned above, captive breeding diminishes specific locality qualities and fitness.

Maybe, though I know people and am probably that way myself that prefer locality specific animals be it a pair of childrens pythons or an elapid.... I would just prefer the pair of animals I had been of "natural heritage", to replicate an animal found within a particular area, I think you will find quite a few people think the same way, though often these people may be a little quiet on an open forum as technically their collection may not be obtained exactly by the book ...

 

[spongebob]

I think much of the 'lines in the sand' are drawn backwards!

Person A knows that they have a locality specific species so triumphs the importance of locality and person B has a wonderful line without knowing where they come from and person C has a morph that looks great.

Personally I uphold all three ideologies depending on which enclosure I'm looking in.

 

[Waterrat]

I think much of the 'lines in the sand' are drawn backwards!

Person A knows that they have a locality specific species so triumphs the importance of locality and person B has a wonderful line without knowing where they come from and person C has a morph that looks great.

Personally I uphold all three ideologies depending on which enclosure I'm looking in.

I agree, good way to look at it.
Te more I think about it, the less I see any REAL reason why known locality is important in the reptile keeping hobby. Field herpetology or genetics is different matter.

 

[Bushfire]

If captive breeding diminishes specific locality qualities and fitness as suggested, what future does locality data have? Judging by JasonL's response it would suggest more and stained pressures on locale populations to keep the replicated "natural beauty". Or will locality data just become a glorified way of saying a particular colour phase / patten/ size.

Its an interesting topic, although filled with more gray areas than black and white; and really get people lost and confused, or straight out attacked by others.

 

[Bushfire]

I think much of the 'lines in the sand' are drawn backwards!

Person A knows that they have a locality specific species so triumphs the importance of locality and person B has a wonderful line without knowing where they come from and person C has a morph that looks great.

Personally I uphold all three ideologies depending on which enclosure I'm looking in.

good point or is that just a way to justify having split personalities lol.

 

[Waterrat]

what future does locality data have?

My line of thinking. Does such data hold integrity? I am sure in many cases it does but unless you have a sufficient captive population (locality specific) then the intrinsic quality will be in-bred and eventually of little value.
What is the real value of locale specific captives? I don't mean in terms of $$.
... just thinking loud.