Proposal regarding hybrids / pure corns

George if we can trust nature, does that mean youa re not against making hybrids ourselves as long as they also occur in nature? How many times should they occur then? Is one single occurence enough? What if an escaped pet snake that is alien for the area breeds with a local species succesfully? Is that nature? My point is: 'occurs in nature' is not a black and white criterium.

The problem is not the making of hybrids, it's the distribution of hybrids by careless or dishonest breeders.

Ok, but that is no answer to my question.

There is also the problem of the careless distribution of hybrids in nature by those snakes that do not know enough not to cross the species or subspecies boundaries we have laid out for them. If one wants to be certain of a snakes origin... a dna pedigree would solve all of this. No more wondering where did that Ultra gene come from... unless of course more wild caught snakes harboring carelessly acquired hybrid genes are utilized by well meaning breeders. Personally, I'd have more faith in hybridizers that tell us that this is a hybrid that they are selling than someone who sells a hybrid whether it be a ultra, tessera, or any other gene and hides its hybrid origin. Not that this is happening, but there does seem to be an awful lot of contention when it comes to subjects such as this. DNA testing would enable us to have 5 and 10 generation genetically verifiable pedigrees within a short period of time and none of this wondering where it came from will even be called into question as it will be much easier to trace potential carriers of said genetic anomaly back until one finds the likely carrier and this to me will credence to what one is purchasing more so than a simple one or two parent dna pedigree... in other words... as the generations grow longer in the genetic database then so too will their value. Sure, it means dna testing breeders, but anyone purchasing a snake from that breeding can then test their own snake and have it proven 100% to be from your stock or someone else's stock thus driving up the price of those corns with a longer pedigree proof.

Originally Posted by SnakeAround

Ok, but that is no answer to my question.

I don't mean to skirt the question. Here is the big sticking point for me......if any species are hybridizing to the point to create viable offspring in the amount that it changes the population then are they truly different species?? I know all this falls to species concepts, conservation biology and all that good stuff. The phylogenetic species concept does not recognize sub-specific designations while the biological species concept does, meaning that depending on what concept was observed when the species was classified can make a difference.
Maybe rat snakes should be considered sub-species instead of true species. I have no clue if these hybridizations occur or at what rate, but the key is looking at this on a much larger time scale. I don't know how long ago speciation occurred in NA rat snakes but it seems to me that if these hybridizations were common the two would have assimilated into one by now.
I do not consider invasive species natural. I don't think many others do either. When they do, we will see Florida county locale pythons for sale..LOL.

Then there is the discussion wether someone is hiding a hybrid origine or just does not believe rumours until proven. I'm not selling ultra's or ultra offspring as hybrids because for me there is not a solid story to convince meto do other wise. So I use my rule of thumb: no proven or 100% otherwise known hybrids in it's parentage + it looks and acts like a corn without any suspicion, than it is a corn. Should someone ask about the origine of the gene and the hybrid rumours, I'm gonna tell the different stories I've read and why I choose to not consider them to be a hybrid. If I would follow any rumours around I'd be labeling all morphs as hybrids you know. Oh, tessera pattern looks like the pattern on another species of snake, it must be a hybrid! Well, doesn't motley or striped? Or anery or amel? Anyone who cares about a possible tiny ampunt of invisible hybrid genes in a snake also knows the rumours and does not need the hybrid label anyway to know which they consider suspicious. Anyone who does not care about a possible tiny amount of invisible hybrid genes in a snake gets the (sub)species he or she wants in all ways noticable without the rumours they don't care about to begin with. I don't think my ways are ethically wrong, for me that's a balance between being paranoid and careless. Of course any obvious hybrid (e.g. made by myself or someone else who labels them or just because they obviously look hybrid) get a hybrid label on my table.

Originally Posted by jkgeorge

I don't mean to skirt the question. Here is the big sticking point for me......if any species are hybridizing to the point to create viable offspring in the amount that it changes the population then are they truly different species?? I know all this falls to species concepts, conservation biology and all that good stuff. The phylogenetic species concept does not recognize sub-specific designations while the biological species concept does, meaning that depending on what concept was observed when the species was classified can make a difference.
Maybe rat snakes should be considered sub-species instead of true species. I have no clue if these hybridizations occur or at what rate, but the key is looking at this on a much larger time scale. I don't know how long ago speciation occurred in NA rat snakes but it seems to me that if these hybridizations were common the two would have assimilated into one by now.
I do not consider invasive species natural. I don't think many others do either. When they do, we will see Florida county locale pythons for sale..LOL.

So what you are saying is, that you are against hybrids but on the other hand you realize that the whole classification thing is artificial, there are different models and they are dynamic so it's impossible to define a hybrid?

I see valid points from both sides of the argument. For me, I try to humanize things so I can relate more. I see African Americans, English Americans, Aboriginal Australians, Chinese Chinese, Mongolian Americans, etc. Sure, there is and always has been intermixing along the boundaries of each pool of so called genetic races of people, but the population is left intact enough that we still have Vietnamese Vietnamese that differ enough from Spanish Americans that we can tell them apart and even classify them as being closer to this group or another. I see no difference with snakes that can interbreed and provide viable progeny by said intermixing. Given enough time and enough mixing new cultures arise and new species arise. I get all of that. Speciation is not something that simply stops... it is ongoing so long as life is ongoing. The boundaries of an organism or species also changes. I don't see life, species, or geographical boundaries as permanent static things. Rather, I see those boundaries as artificial boundaries imposed on them by man as our means of classifying them into a nice orderly way so as to be able to comprehend them more easily.

Originally Posted by SnakeAround

So what you are saying is, that you are against hybrids but on the other hand you realize that the whole classification thing is artificial, there are different models and they are dynamic so it's impossible to define a hybrid?

It is dynamic, BUT on a time scale that we cannot easily observe. It is easy to observe the offspring of a corn x cali king but it is nearly impossible to get a handle on what is happening genetically where corns and other rats or kings overlap. The natural populations we observe are fairly static (genetically) when viewed over say a human lifetime. Unless humans are doing something crazy it is a safe bet that the population of snake A will be genetically stable in county X throughout my lifetime.

Isn't it crazy to breed for traits that might never appear in the same organism if left to nature? We are altering a snakes morphology in ways that would never occur in nature when we selectively breed for traits that we like. How is adding hybrid genes into the mix any different or anything to worry about anymore so than the selective breeding of traits not normally seen in a wild specimen is something to worry about? I see a Honduran x Corn along the same lines as I see a Honduran x American personally. Even more so when it is understood that these are pets. I think if we could let go of our fears of calling them hybrid and simply create the most beautiful snakes we can based on what can and should naturally breed together to produce babies for the pet trade then we may be onto something called progress.