So....just to debate the point of “locality” a bit.....
Would I be wrong when I put the idea forward, of particular localities - and I’m talking large areas in when I say locality - throwing certain genetic differences in snakes, simply through undisturbed evolution in those snakes genetic makeups? That is, certain traits in colour are passed on generation to generation and in the case of pythons living relatively undisturbed in their happy environment, those traits can become a signature of sorts within a noticeable number of the pythons caught there, simply because they chose not to travel that far because they were already in favourable areas to live ie their preferred locality.
Using diamond pythons for example, would you agree that it’d be a fair statement to say that, for the most part, the diamonds from the cooler, southern regions are generally darker than their cousins from the northernmost areas that they’re found. Diamonds from the colder blue mountain areas are likely also darker than the northern ones, but perhaps not quite so dark as the southern ones, whilst the northern diamonds lose that darkness and acquire more of the yellow. If you do agree with that statement, then would it necessarily follow that I’d be correct in saying that when I say that I want a northern diamond python, everyone within the reptile hobby would know that I was after a diamond with more yellow than dark? If I say I’m particularly interested in a Gosford diamond, then you’re likely thinking that I’m after something that’s Het high yellow because, if I’m not, why don’t I just grab any old diamond? Why the Gosford?
I guess my point is that “locality reptiles” are *generally* a known trait, usually colour, and people want a reptile with that trait and so their chances of achieving it are increased when using local stock with that particular trait.
Thoughts?