Is it crossbreeding?

[PilbaraPythons]

Come on now boa surely you don’t really believe that the only difference between the two areas is the name? Please tell me you are joking? Or were you just meaning between Tully and the Palmerston?

 

[notechistiger]

So, basically amazonian, you're saying that you would or wouldn't breed two different locality specific snakes based mainly on visual appeal?

 

[slacker]

IMO if you know the locality of an animal then you should locate another locale specific animal.

And how do you know what location the animal is from? Because the seller told you so? When it's in the interests of the seller to tell you it's a locality-specific animal? heh.

To further illustrate this, I go back to my earlier statement. I plan to pair a "Tully" and a "Palmerston" this season. What was ever stopping me from advertising them as locality-specific Tullys (or Palmerstons)? Absolutely nothing. But I'm not and I won't.

And again, I repeat.... keep in mind how far those locations are from one another.

And to PilbaraPythons, I've seen some great B&G jungles which are supposedly of Atherton origin. I say supposed because I did not catch them. They were owned by a respectable breeder and I'd trust his claim to locality more than many other people's. By the same token, unless you catch them yourself, you can never know for sure. Sure, they may not have been the epitomized Atherton, but they were supposedly from the same location as all of those Athertons.

 

[Retic]

I have seen some truly beautiful Athertons, equally as good as the more accepted B&G's from Tully or Palmerston or wherever.

 

[amazonian]

So, basically amazonian, you're saying that you would or wouldn't breed two different locality specific snakes based mainly on visual appeal?

No I am not saying that.
What I am saying is for me personally it would be a contribution of size differences, habitat differences, behaviour differences, colour &/or marking differences, and any other minor or major differences between the 2. But who am I kidding really, I would rather local specific animals 100%. But in true APS fashion and to get involved in this conversation I threw a few examples out there as food for thought.

At the end of the day it comes down to personal opinion & personal preferances.
As stated "if you know the true locality of an animal then you should locate another locale specific animal of the same area". My EG's were just that, examples of how I personally feel about it. I wouldn't cross those animals because there is deffinate identifying differences and not just in appearance.

 

[PilbaraPythons]

Genetic benchmarks of what are deemed to quantify a species or not, are not arrived at by taking into account the different morphological traits like size, colour, behaviour etc in populations of the same species.

However if it is abundantly clear that these differences do exist, and are evident or widely known to many reptile enthusiasts out there who understand or recognize such. Then the question raised would be who cares what it is deemed to be on species level? Aren’t those differences worth persevering and to be valued within our hobby? I say absolutely.

Boa
Are you saying that there no known differences in between Athertons and lower rain forests specimens e.g Tullys, Innisfail etc ?

 

[itbites]

Personally I prefer PURE animals each locality have different aspects take woma's for example s.a form are huge in comparison to the tanami ect... If you cross locales then your cross breeding! Who wants an animal that is a mixed up mess...I like to know where my animals originate from

 

[notechistiger]

I don't particularly if it's a cross or not. I don't care if a snake is a "proper" cross or not- meaning ANY crosses, not just subspecies crosses.

As long as they have/will be sold accordingly.

 

[Southside Morelia]

Here we go again

 

[hornet]

Personally I prefer PURE animals each locality have different aspects take woma's for example s.a form are huge in comparison to the tanami ect... If you cross locales then your cross breeding! Who wants an animal that is a mixed up mess...I like to know where my animals originate from

cossing 2 different locales isnt cross breeding, they are still pure woma's

 

[tarzan]

just to add some fuel, how long do you think it will be before we follow the Americans? I believe we would be nieve to think that in the years to come this won't take place here within our hobby. Hopefully when it does it increases the drive to produce pure Aussie/Local specific lines.

 

[amazonian]

cossing 2 different locales isnt cross breeding, they are still pure woma's

Definitions of pure:
Unmixed with any other matter...
Characterized by no appreciable alteration of articulation during utterance...
Being thus and no other...
Containing nothing that does not properly belong...
Free from moral fault or guilt...
Marked by chastity...
Pure blood and unmixed ancestry...
Homozygous in and breeding true for one or more characters...
Ritually clean...

Yes they are still Woma's, but are they really pure like you suggest?
Wouldn't pure mean not modified in any way, shape or form?

Boodarie & Tanami animals are pretty different, so how could mixing them together create a pure animal when it's genes is split between 2 different types? It may still be a Woma but it is not a specific animal that is born pure on it's own accord without the aid of human intervention or force.

It is all personal opinion, whether right or wrong, pure or not, it comes down to individual perceptions of the topic. What YOU think it is, how YOU feel about it etc.

 

[mick_304]

Ok everyones getting abit off track, i just wanted to no if it is crossbreeding, i i didnt think that it would be that much of an issue after all they are the same species. And If for instance they were crossed what they would look like. I dont agree with crossbreeding, that is why i have asked.

 

[itbites]

lolz...umm yeh! what amazon said Sorry Hornet but oils aint oil and woma's aint womas and there are 3 main types that have been distinguished tanami, s.a and uluru and they are all different from each other...i'de prefer for it to stay like that

 

[Retic]

Simple answer, NO, it is not crossbreeding.

Ok everyones getting abit off track, i just wanted to no if it is crossbreeding, i i didnt think that it would be that much of an issue after all they are the same species. And If for instance they were crossed what they would look like. I dont agree with crossbreeding, that is why i have asked.

 

[Ned_fisch]

Their both Cheynei, its not gonna hurt anything.
People wont even notice it is Atherton/palmerston or Palmerstone/tully or BG/Atherton.

 

[amazonian]

It is quite comical really, when you see everyone complaining about GTP's in collections not being pure because they are crossed with Indo's etc. yet they think mixing the same species like Woma's from different localities are pure lol.

Let me ask, would you call the offspring from an English staffy & an American Staffy a purebred?
How about an American Bulldog with an Aussie bulldog, British bulldog or french bulldog?
What about the Mastiff breeds? or bull terriers?


Anyway the question has 2 answers really and would be dependant of yourself.
It is an argument that can't be won or proven either way as it all comes down to personal opinions. Morals, feelings, thoughts & beliefs etc all play part.

The correct answer IMO is:
What YOU as an indidual believe.
How YOU as an individual feel about it.
How YOU as an individual see it.

And there will always be contradictions to the fact because as stated there is 2 sides to the story. There are those for it and those against it. And untill the animals are more isolated in identification this is how it will remain as I think this is only due to the fact that we have not completely seperated the species like we have dogs as Reptiles are only a recent aquisition to captivity in comparison. If we had seperated the species as persay then the outlook would be different indeed. JMO

In conclusion,
Is it cross breeding? No, not really.
Is it pure breeding? No not really
(But we do know it can't be a natural accurance, therefore can't really be pure)
Is it frowned upon? Yes & no
Is it morally right or wrong? yes & no
Is it worth debating? yes & no

LOL

 

[cockney red]

That about covers it for me, as it does every week this thread comes up.

I don't particularly if it's a cross or not. I don't care if a snake is a "proper" cross or not- meaning ANY crosses, not just subspecies crosses.

As long as they have/will be sold accordingly.

 

[spilota_variegata]

It is quite comical really, when you see everyone complaining about GTP's in collections not being pure because they are crossed with Indo's etc. yet they think mixing the same species like Woma's from different localities are pure lol.

It's quite obvious to me where and why the "Pure bred, DNA tested GTP" push was started. The original breeders of GTPs are now seeing numbers growing within the general herp community. To protect their own interests - and yes many are in positions where they can influence general consensus - they start the "Australian GTPs are better" spin. By doing this, they drop the demand - and subsequently the price - of the offspring of the snakes they originally sold (many, if not most were of non Australian background) and promote their current projects. It's good business sense though somewhat unscrupulous.

I personally see no problem mixing different jungle localities.

 

[hornet]

not pure locality but the species is still pure if you cross 2 different localities