In relation to the previous comments, I have an issue with use of the term "Jaguar" in Australia. We have breeders here who have produced reduced pattern animals from entirely Australian stock which have the same form of patterning as the original Jags produced in Europe. The home-grown products do not have the gene linkage to the neuro-muscular mutations that animals of European origin display. Does the use of the term Jag mean that we are referring to animals of European origin?
I don't think any state authority is happy with the crossing of subspecies, let alone species. If for no other reason, it presents them with difficulties in putting a name tag on animals and in identifying n the types of animals held by a keeper when that becomes necessary. As best I understand it, NSW accepted the reality of numerous crosses within the carpet group when legislation was first introduced. While I am sure they would have happily banned all sub-specific crosses, their pre-existence makes that too problematic - you cannot have them as accepted othe list and ban their production at the same time.
There are more morphological defining differences between the species of Antaresia than just their patterns. In addition, genetic profiles are distinctive. So while they may seem difficult to distinguish on the basis of variable patterns within each species providing an apparent overlap, their are additional definitive diagnostic features that are available to provide an accurate species ID.
As Longqi points out, developing "designer animals" is often about mixing selected animals from very different genetic stock to bring together unique and "desirable" combinations of genes. Some consider this acceptable while others do not. As for the departments responsible for management and enforcement of keeping regulations, I would hazard a guess and say they they find it one large pain in the butt!
Blue
