Sean_L
Not so new Member
If I had the choice, Id put them all together. In a large communal enclosure. Then theyd choose each other. Thats just me though.
A little bit dangerous for the weaker males.If I had the choice, Id put them all together. In a large communal enclosure. Then theyd choose each other. Thats just me though.
Sure you can find them champagne but are they the norm. If you can go to the area, grab a heap, compare and find a reasonable percentage that look the same then yes. They would fit the definition.
To me a locale animal should look like the majority or a representative sample from that area. Otherwise it's a line bred julatten selected for a certain trait but not a representative of the wild population. It's still a julatten.
Remember this is all just my interpretation of the definition and has no bearing what so ever on reality. It's just IMO.
Champagne;
'To most people a purist is someone who doesn't cross species or sub species and a true purist doesn't cross pure known locality animals.I guess that where I personally differ. If I was to collect a new species for the hobby I would simply take any healthy, appropriate looking pair from the number of animals available to me. If I wanted a different 'version' Id attempt to locate a locale that was more to my liking. Thats just me though. I like it as it comes. I find a darwin's natural patterning and colouration far more intricate and wonderful than any albino darwin. Thats why I dont own any albino darwins. Nor will I.
The problem with your interpretation of purist is even if you are trying to select for a true representation of the locality, you will still be selecting the best looking animals. For example look at Julatten locality jungles, the purists are still selecting for a high contrast animal that doesn't muddy out with age. These animals are still pure locality animals and you can find animals just as clean if not better in the wild. '
But other people are welcome to, dont get me wrong.
A jungle that muddy's with age is just a normal jungle. I accept that. Thats just what I find appealing. And while I understand that more vibrant individuals do occur, its when you specifically take 2 vibrant animals and selectively breed them is when I personally feel you tread the line of staying purist. Sure, if you happen upon a more spectacular animal you can keep it, but be happy to breed it with a normal one and treat it as you would any other individual. If youre a purist that is. Otherwise do what you like, Im happy.
Haven't forgotten champagne in fact I have mentioned a number of times about the variation within populations. They all still tend to look the same though. You don't get something that looks like a diamond popping up in bundaberg. Unless it's an escapee.
''I find a darwin's natural patterning and colouration far more intricate.'' I agree but have you seen the variation of darwins within a locality? how would you choose the ''wild representation'' for that area? and which would be the right one to reintroduce if the wild population was to disappear?
yes but you do get reduced patterns, hypos and what would be referred to as ''wild types'' within the same area and Im not talking about the one off breath takers that you find but in large numbers. so which one is the correct wild representation for that locality?
I do agree with you guys (in theory) and in an ideal world everyone would be a locality purist or at least not cross sub species but unfortunately its quicker to just cross localities and sub species to get your desired paint job.
Maybe we could get some photos posted of wild type locality specific animals as examples and discuss from there what personal experiences we have had and variations we have seen. This may pronounce how hard it is to actually pin down a colour or pattern of a locality. I think locality animals are more generalised characteristics rather than being the majority of the population.
You are right but I chose coastals because they are something that I have seen many times so I could talk actual experience and have noticed big variations in. Maybe [MENTION=4778]cement[/MENTION] could weigh back in on this discussion with the years of experience of field herping he would have certainly seen many variations of different species and may be able to give us a feel for if there is such a thing as a text book locality animal.I agree Andy there is huge variation but if you go to a given area you can expect a given species to look a certain way. Coastal carpets are a poor choice of comparison because for the majority of their range they look similar enough that most people couldn't tell the difference.
Stimsons would be a better choice as they do look decidedly different in different areas. A coastal from Brisbane and a coastal from bundaberg aren't going to differ enough to say it's not just local variation. If you put the two together without telling a point of origin most people wouldn't be able to pick. A stimsoni from the wheat belt is going to look different to one from the pilbara. Much greater distance between them but you should get the idea.
Enter your email address to join: