Morelia_Hunter
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2005
- Messages
- 541
- Reaction score
- 0
Just an interesting piece of reading material. I like the way this author puts it. I copied it off carpetpythons.net
Question: (Outside of Australia) Should captive propagation of Morelia spilota subspecies be limited to pure individuals of a given subspecies?
In short, the answer is no. Keepers have no responsibility to breed similar subspecies, and in fact an argument could be made that for the purposes of maintaining snakes in captivity, crossing subspecies is to a small extent, beneficial. Further, acquiring or even identifying animals as pure is an impossibility.
This is a complex issue. In simplifying it we can begin with the question:
“Why do some people maintain collections of snakes, specifically Morelia species?”
In the most general terms, keepers exist along a continuum spanning from strict herpetology to herpetoculture. Herpetology could be described as being interested in the science of the animals, while Herpetoculture treats the activity as more of an art form.
Herpetology minded keepers would address the questions of taxonomy, ecology, biology, etc. Whereas those on the Herpetoculture end of the spectrum are more interested in discovering methods of maintenance, producing animals that thrive in the domestic habitat (including selective breeding for novel coloration), and maximizing reproductive effort.
In my estimation, the vast majority of keepers in our current community would be best described as being closer to the herpetoculture side of the spectrum. As such, the goal is to produce quality ‘pet’ snakes, and not replicas of wild relatives.
Obviously there is crossover, as the two influence each other, and very few keepers are going to be representatives of either extreme.
If one is interested in the art/ herpetoculture aspects of the activity, then it is obvious that subspecies would often be bred with different subspecies in order to produce novel appearances. Hybrid vigor, or the tendency for genetic diversity to increase the capacity for adaptation in an animal may be another reason to cross subspecies for those interested in the artistic facets of keeping Morelia. Further, positive attributes of a given subspecies may be the reason for crossing various subspecies, in order to produce animals, which display the coveted facets of the subspecies.
The science-oriented keepers have different goals. Many of the questions that a keeper could be investigating are just as easily addressed by an animal that is a sub specific cross, as they could be by a wild type animal. For example, in an inquiry related to Python biology, the differences between a mcdowelli type animal vs. a cheynei type animal are likely to be very slight. Indeed the only inquiries in which the purity of specimens in critical, is in inquiries that focus on comparing subspecies. This is where it becomes obvious that if the endeavors target comparative ecology, or comparative biology of subspecies, then the laboratory should be the animal’s natural habitat, and not the domestic habitat.
US keepers of Morelia cannot answer scientific questions regarding these comparative questions. This is true for the following reasons:
Assuming that wild animals are regarded as Pure, no one to my knowledge maintains animals with PROOF of their origin. Proof would entail a photographic record of each animal involved, and 3rd party verification. Even this likely falls short of true proof. (Perhaps I am wrong, but is seems likely that this proof would have surfaced already).
Having said this, wild animals are not verifiably pure. There are many possible avenues for animals to breed with different subspecies than themselves (birds of prey may drop animals outside of their native range,floods may transfer animals outside of their native range, or Humans may transport animals outside of their native range).
Assuming that #1 and #2 were satisfied, the fact that the animals in question are many generations removed from their wild caught founding parents, natural selection has not taken place. Human selection is the driving force in these populations. Therefore these animals can no longer be considered representative of wild populations.
These facts demonstrate that even if it were agreed that various subspecies should not be bred, it is impossible to guarantee that they have not been or will not be bred together.
Additionally, in my view, the term ‘Pure’ is not very useful, and we would be better served by utilizing the term Wild Type.
Question: (Outside of Australia) Should captive propagation of Morelia spilota subspecies be limited to pure individuals of a given subspecies?
In short, the answer is no. Keepers have no responsibility to breed similar subspecies, and in fact an argument could be made that for the purposes of maintaining snakes in captivity, crossing subspecies is to a small extent, beneficial. Further, acquiring or even identifying animals as pure is an impossibility.
This is a complex issue. In simplifying it we can begin with the question:
“Why do some people maintain collections of snakes, specifically Morelia species?”
In the most general terms, keepers exist along a continuum spanning from strict herpetology to herpetoculture. Herpetology could be described as being interested in the science of the animals, while Herpetoculture treats the activity as more of an art form.
Herpetology minded keepers would address the questions of taxonomy, ecology, biology, etc. Whereas those on the Herpetoculture end of the spectrum are more interested in discovering methods of maintenance, producing animals that thrive in the domestic habitat (including selective breeding for novel coloration), and maximizing reproductive effort.
In my estimation, the vast majority of keepers in our current community would be best described as being closer to the herpetoculture side of the spectrum. As such, the goal is to produce quality ‘pet’ snakes, and not replicas of wild relatives.
Obviously there is crossover, as the two influence each other, and very few keepers are going to be representatives of either extreme.
If one is interested in the art/ herpetoculture aspects of the activity, then it is obvious that subspecies would often be bred with different subspecies in order to produce novel appearances. Hybrid vigor, or the tendency for genetic diversity to increase the capacity for adaptation in an animal may be another reason to cross subspecies for those interested in the artistic facets of keeping Morelia. Further, positive attributes of a given subspecies may be the reason for crossing various subspecies, in order to produce animals, which display the coveted facets of the subspecies.
The science-oriented keepers have different goals. Many of the questions that a keeper could be investigating are just as easily addressed by an animal that is a sub specific cross, as they could be by a wild type animal. For example, in an inquiry related to Python biology, the differences between a mcdowelli type animal vs. a cheynei type animal are likely to be very slight. Indeed the only inquiries in which the purity of specimens in critical, is in inquiries that focus on comparing subspecies. This is where it becomes obvious that if the endeavors target comparative ecology, or comparative biology of subspecies, then the laboratory should be the animal’s natural habitat, and not the domestic habitat.
US keepers of Morelia cannot answer scientific questions regarding these comparative questions. This is true for the following reasons:
Assuming that wild animals are regarded as Pure, no one to my knowledge maintains animals with PROOF of their origin. Proof would entail a photographic record of each animal involved, and 3rd party verification. Even this likely falls short of true proof. (Perhaps I am wrong, but is seems likely that this proof would have surfaced already).
Having said this, wild animals are not verifiably pure. There are many possible avenues for animals to breed with different subspecies than themselves (birds of prey may drop animals outside of their native range,floods may transfer animals outside of their native range, or Humans may transport animals outside of their native range).
Assuming that #1 and #2 were satisfied, the fact that the animals in question are many generations removed from their wild caught founding parents, natural selection has not taken place. Human selection is the driving force in these populations. Therefore these animals can no longer be considered representative of wild populations.
These facts demonstrate that even if it were agreed that various subspecies should not be bred, it is impossible to guarantee that they have not been or will not be bred together.
Additionally, in my view, the term ‘Pure’ is not very useful, and we would be better served by utilizing the term Wild Type.
