Locality / Purity. Why Does It Matter?

[Sdaji]

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

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

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

 

[imported_Varanus]

Hey John,

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

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

I.V.

 

[$NaKe PiMp]

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

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

 

[caustichumor]

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

 

[cris]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Australis]

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

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

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

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









.

 

[Jonno from ERD]

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

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

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

 

[Sdaji]

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

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

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

 

[BrownHash]

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

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

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

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

 

[cris]

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

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

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

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

 

[gold&black...]

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

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

 

[DDALDD]

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

 

[GrumpyTheSnake]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Nagraj]

Is it nothing more than sentimentality?

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

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

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

 

[Lozza]

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

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

Very interesting thread Sdaji!

 

[Sdaji]

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

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

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

There is also a quarantine issue with our captive animals.

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

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

 

[Kathryn_]

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

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

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

 

[salebrosus]

I think that's a great comparison! Real vs synthetic jewels. Gold plated steel or solid gold. There's no tangible difference, and there's no real justification for saying that there is any actual value in having 'real' jewelry.

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

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

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

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

Just my 2 bobs worth.

Simone.

 

[elapid@]

great subject sdaji

In my own opinion.

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

 

[nikay11]

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