• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Proposal regarding hybrids / pure corns

After how many generations of "pure" breeding would say a snake is pure corn?

  • As long as a snake looks like a corn and acts like a corn, it's pure to me

    Votes: 4 8.2%

  • After 2 generations

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • After 5 generations

    Votes: 5 10.2%

  • After 10 generations

    Votes: 7 14.3%

  • After 15 generations

    Votes: 1 2.0%

  • After 20 generations

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • After 25 generations or more (if more, specify which number in the thread)

    Votes: 2 4.1%

  • If a snake has any hybrid ancestor, no matter how many generations ago, it's still a hybrid.

    Votes: 30 61.2%
  • Total voters
    49
Now that is an excellent example. No alternate bloodlines introduced, just simply selecting the best offspring with most desirable traits to propagate. What is really interesting how the ears, tail and fur all started to change over time as well.

Start with one thing and keep it that way. Don't muddy it up by adding what its not needed to achieve the goal.
 
BloodyBaroness said:
Now that is an excellent example. No alternate bloodlines introduced, just simply selecting the best offspring with most desirable traits to propagate. What is really interesting how the ears, tail and fur all started to change over time as well.

Start with one thing and keep it that way. Don't muddy it up by adding what its not needed to achieve the goal.
Click to expand...
If there had been any hybridisation involved, the experiments would have been totally invalid. By keeping to the silver foxes and with rigorous scientific methodology the sought-after changes were interesting enough, the unexpected are just amazing. There are films of the foxes descended from the projects raised as pets and they are like the ultimate dog/cat/slinky combination, I WANT ONE!
 
BloodyBaroness said:
Which is why my comment of "Why not simply breed the most amiable tempered corns to other amiable tempered corns? There is ZERO reason to toss hybrids in there at all" makes a heck of a lot more sense contextually. Hybrids do not need to be included at all.
Click to expand...

Very true, one can breed for temperament. The context however of stating that corn snakes used to not bite, musk, etc. in the way it was used lead me to infer he was referring to other snakes (hybrids). True, one could also possibly infer that breeders were simply breeding for bad temperaments, but what would be the motive to do this? Personally, I'd rather let the person speak for themselves though as to what they actually meant. Sure, I'll go out on a limb with you and say that there were multiple ways his comment could be interpreted. That does not mean the way I interpreted it was a wrong interpretation and at best one could argue that his point was not states clearly enough. At best, one could say his comment left room for some ambiguity. Perhaps it would be better to ask from clarification from the poster though and not assume you know any better than I do what he or she meant simply because you were astute enough to see another possible interpretation?
 
NiklasTyreso said:
A good definition of a cornsnake should also specify behaviour patterns. I like corns as they used not to be agressive and they did not musk.
I think people that like to get bitten and musked on should breed other species than cornsnakes, just stop breeding such traits into cornsnakes.:fullauto:

I'm not against hybrids, I'm a 4 % neanderthal hybrid my self, but I like the good old nice tempered cornsnakes like they used to be.
Click to expand...

Because he said " I like corns" not hybrids.

He also said "I think people that like to get bitten and musked on should breed other species than cornsnakes, just stop breeding such traits into cornsnakes"

Stop breeding such traits into corn snakes means simply that; stop breeding such traits into corn snakes. Not hybrids.

There is no room for ambiguity. It's pretty darn clear.

This right here solidifies the point, "but I like the good old nice tempered cornsnakes like they used to be."
 
BloodyBaroness said:
Now that is an excellent example. No alternate bloodlines introduced, just simply selecting the best offspring with most desirable traits to propagate. What is really interesting how the ears, tail and fur all started to change over time as well.

Start with one thing and keep it that way. Don't muddy it up by adding what its not needed to achieve the goal.
Click to expand...

If one wanted to start with one thing and keep it that way one would not seek to create new and interesting morphs in my opinion. I think we see many who would like to breed for better temperaments, different morphs, etc. Many do like to see something new and exciting even when dealing with a limited gene pool. To see how far we can push the envelop with that limited gene pool is very exciting to many.
As for the comment, "Don't muddy it up by adding what is not needed to achieve that goal. I couldn't agree more with you. If something is not in that limited gene pool though it is up to those with goals of achieving that special something to introduce that gene from an outside gene pool or else give up on that goal. One might also think that perhaps it was easier to clean up the mud so to speak and achieve ones goals faster if another snake was brought into the mix. Either way, if the end result is eventually attained what does it matter if one had to do some cleaning along the way?
 
The comment, I like corns as they used to be.... says it all to me. But then that is my opinion. I'd rather not think that breeders selected for bad temperaments or that breeders selected corn snakes to musk when they once did not. If we conclude that corn snakes never used to musk and take this statement at face value. We might also conclude that since corn snakes never used to musk that this trait may have been introduced and bred into corns or else one is left with the question... where did the first musk producing corn snake originate? Mind you, I am no expert on corns as many here are. I am simply stating that it was easy to interpret from a novice standpoint as I have done.
 
Carpe Serpentis said:
If one wanted to start with one thing and keep it that way one would not seek to create new and interesting morphs in my opinion. I think we see many who would like to breed for better temperaments, different morphs, etc. Many do like to see something new and exciting even when dealing with a limited gene pool. To see how far we can push the envelop with that limited gene pool is very exciting to many.
As for the comment, "Don't muddy it up by adding what is not needed to achieve that goal. I couldn't agree more with you. If something is not in that limited gene pool though it is up to those with goals of achieving that special something to introduce that gene from an outside gene pool or else give up on that goal. One might also think that perhaps it was easier to clean up the mud so to speak and achieve ones goals faster if another snake was brought into the mix. Either way, if the end result is eventually attained what does it matter if one had to do some cleaning along the way?
Click to expand...

You completely miss the point of that study.

One might also think that perhaps it was easier to clean up the mud so to speak and achieve ones goals faster if another snake was brought into the mix.
Click to expand...

It would be really hard to breed a snake to a silver fox.

No, adding in unknown and untested genes to a project like that is stupid. It undoes all of the selective breeding and gene development by adding in catalysts that can have unintended results. It would be completely pointless in a study like that.
 
One need only look at the beautiful daylily hybrids that been created with diamond dusting, sharks tooth edges, etc... many of these hybrids were created out of multiple species and some even had to have their dna doubled by the use of colchicine to make them compatible with other species. Sure, there were beautiful and unintended consequences and novel repercussions that have resulted from such hybrids selling in the thousands of dollars for a single specimen. I can only dream of achieving some unexpected results like that with corn snake hybrids, but one will never know until one gets serious about hybridizing corns just what is possible and this may take many generations to uncover all of the possibilities that lay hidden as there are many hybrids that have not been attempted.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't pretty much ALL snakes have the ability to musk?? I think it's a temperment thing, not an indication of being a hybrid.

I don't know of any breeders that intentioanlly bred for feisty traits, but more likely probably focused on the look of the snake, & the temperment happened to be not so nice. If that breeder is continually selecting for looks, & not caring about temperment, & the general consumer picks the snake for its looks, not temperment, then why would the breeder chance losing the visual beauty for the temperment?

That said, I know plenty of people look for good temperment, but most breeders are breeding for look first.

Temperment in Corns does not indicate the presence of hybridization. Okeetees are a locality, & they are one of the ones known for having sour temperments....see, no hybrid there.

We get that you like hybrids, & that's fine, for you.

But I have to agree with BB, you seem to interject hybrids into pretty much every conversation, & it gets tiresome.
 
The proposal regarding hybrids/pure corns... thought this was the perfect thread to discuss hybrids in as well as pure corns. I guess I was mistaken? I do admit fault of answering some questions and retorting to some other opinions with my own if one can say that is a fault.
 
Carpe Serpentis said:
As for missing the point of the study, you assume too much.
Click to expand...

Nah, I never assume. Your reply was clear. Unless, you elected to appear that way, which is hardly an assumption on my part, but a error on yours.

If you idolize hybrids so much, then practice what you preach. I don't see any evidence of you working toward that glorious goal you are talking about.

I have a ridiculous amount of respect for Clayton at Mesozoic reptiles. He works with some of the most outstanding hybrids around. He is a humble person and is a joy to talk with. Very knowledgeable and articulate with his research and projects.

You however, not so much. Chip was pretty spot on with gas comment. It may not be how you are trying to come across, but it sure reads that way. Horking out obscure dogs stories, and shoehorning in hybrids every chance you get, makes you seem like a narrow perspective boor. I know it's probably not how you want to be received at all.

We completely and wholly get that you like hybrids. I do think you have some interesting ideas on things, but constantly turning every single thing toward hybrids gets old.

I adore ball pythons, most people on the site know it, but I don't cram it into every single post whether it fits or not.
 
Carpe Serpentis said:
If one wanted to start with one thing and keep it that way one would not seek to create new and interesting morphs in my opinion. I think we see many who would like to breed for better temperaments, different morphs, etc. Many do like to see something new and exciting even when dealing with a limited gene pool. To see how far we can push the envelop with that limited gene pool is very exciting to many.
As for the comment, "Don't muddy it up by adding what is not needed to achieve that goal. I couldn't agree more with you. If something is not in that limited gene pool though it is up to those with goals of achieving that special something to introduce that gene from an outside gene pool or else give up on that goal. One might also think that perhaps it was easier to clean up the mud so to speak and achieve ones goals faster if another snake was brought into the mix. Either way, if the end result is eventually attained what does it matter if one had to do some cleaning along the way?
Click to expand...
Hold on there. The study uncovered genetic traits that were completely unexpected and had never been expressed. If there had been any hybridisation the origin of those traits would have been unprovable. The genetics for floppy ears, curly tail, spotted coats were there in the species itself all along. Do you not understand that as much merit as there is in some hybridisation, it is not the only way to elicit change in a species?
Once again, for emphasis, there was no hybridisation, just years of rigorously conducted breeding trials and scientific methodology. that proved the original hypothesis, that there was indeed a genetic component for temperement. It also, fortuitously, proved that the same genetics corelated to changes in the morphology of that species. If you delve further into the publshed studies, the links between the changes or sensitivities to hormones in the test subjects is really intriguing.
The implications from the studies to changes in various domesticated animals over history, where man originally selecting for behaviours such as 'tameness' may have unwittingly therefore produced such traits as floppy ears, spotted coats etc in antiquity without any need for hybridisation. Again, in the original wild species the genetics for those morphological traits already existed but was not expressed until man's selection process of chosen traits came to influence the subsequent generations of cattle/sheep/dogs or whatever.
To relate this to corns.....without any hybrid theory involved...I have a postulation. By selecting from those snakes which were easily tamed and raised on pinky mice, we could unwittingly have selected those corns with the genetics for such traits as pied/striped/motley. Those genes were never expressed in the wild, until our manipulation of the selected, colourful, easy to raise corns created the right genetic mix for the pattern abnormalities to be expressed. None of us are particularly scientific, but we use Punnet squares to try to predict outcomes, buy from trusted, known sources, and then Voila! Someone puts together just the right combination and in the resulting clutch there are genes expressed we never knew existed, without hybridisation at all. Not created by us, they were in the corn's genome all along.
 
And in the end, we are left with a donkra...
 

Attachments

  • tumblr_kqhuwxjb191qz8guyo1_500.jpg
    tumblr_kqhuwxjb191qz8guyo1_500.jpg
    88 KB · Views: 97
diamondlil said:
Hold on there. The study uncovered genetic traits that were completely unexpected and had never been expressed. If there had been any hybridisation the origin of those traits would have been unprovable. The genetics for floppy ears, curly tail, spotted coats were there in the species itself all along. Do you not understand that as much merit as there is in some hybridisation, it is not the only way to elicit change in a species?
Once again, for emphasis, there was no hybridisation, just years of rigorously conducted breeding trials and scientific methodology. that proved the original hypothesis, that there was indeed a genetic component for temperement. It also, fortuitously, proved that the same genetics corelated to changes in the morphology of that species. If you delve further into the publshed studies, the links between the changes or sensitivities to hormones in the test subjects is really intriguing.
The implications from the studies to changes in various domesticated animals over history, where man originally selecting for behaviours such as 'tameness' may have unwittingly therefore produced such traits as floppy ears, spotted coats etc in antiquity without any need for hybridisation. Again, in the original wild species the genetics for those morphological traits already existed but was not expressed until man's selection process of chosen traits came to influence the subsequent generations of cattle/sheep/dogs or whatever.
To relate this to corns.....without any hybrid theory involved...I have a postulation. By selecting from those snakes which were easily tamed and raised on pinky mice, we could unwittingly have selected those corns with the genetics for such traits as pied/striped/motley. Those genes were never expressed in the wild, until our manipulation of the selected, colourful, easy to raise corns created the right genetic mix for the pattern abnormalities to be expressed. None of us are particularly scientific, but we use Punnet squares to try to predict outcomes, buy from trusted, known sources, and then Voila! Someone puts together just the right combination and in the resulting clutch there are genes expressed we never knew existed, without hybridisation at all. Not created by us, they were in the corn's genome all along.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and I got all of that the first time you related this information. I get that great things can be accomplished without hybridizing and some serious changes to morphology can be selected for. I also get that hybrids can and frequently do add in genes that do not exist in a quote unquote natural population. I applaud those that work towards uncovering or magnifying the genes already present in a population. No one is saying that you can't do marvelous things and even unexpected things through linebreeding. The world is full of examples where complex changes in morphology have taken place by the concerted efforts of breeders. Dog breeds in general come to mine when looking at the massive number of breeds that are so distinctive from one another as to make your head spin. Albeit, there is some contention surrounding the domesticated dog and its forebears, I'll leave that alone. Don't ever get me wrong and think that I don't admire what can be done through linebreeding a pure species or a hybrid for that matter. I just choose to personally not limit my options. Those that do choose limit their options for their own beliefs, desires, etc.... I have no qualms with them either and applaud the work I've seen many produce on both sides of the argument so to speak. If hybrids adding nothing new to the mix there would be absolutely no need to produce hybrids or any way of telling that a snake was a hybrid.
 
Isoldael said:
Proposal

To define a definition of a pure corn that can be checked and regulated.

Reason for proposal

Whether or not a snake is a hybrid is obviously a very big deal for some people. At the moment, though, we have no way to check if a corn snake is completely pure. Who is to say that one of your snake's ancestors didn't breed with another species at some point, however many generations ago? What do we even define as a hybrid? Is a snake a hybrid even if the last hybridization was 500 generations ago? What makes a corn pure? Note that this proposal was mainly sparked by a discussion we had on a facebook group - personally, I have no known hybrids nor do I intend to ever sell known hybrids as pure.

What will this proposal accomplish?

Hopefully, we will be able to eliminate some of the uncertainty people seem to have when buying from certain breeders. People will be able to say they sell pure corns and will be able to back it up with actual data instead of having people have to take their word for it. Snakes with a proven "pure" lineage might make the seller some more money and people who are completely against breeding hybrids will be able to buy only pure corns. This should entice people to register their snakes, giving us better insight in lineage.

What we need to do to make this work

1) Set a definition for pure corn snakes. To do this, we could look at the definitions of pure species / breeds that are currently in use. For most species or breeds, the definitions are along the lines of "If animal x has only been bred to pure animals of the same species/breed for y generations and displays a, b and c traits, the animal is regarded as pure". For the rest of this proposal, I'll use this definition.
2) Determine how many generations would eliminate a significant part of any hybrid influence a snake might have and make it virtually indistinguishable from "pure" corns.
3) Determine what we consider to be "pure" traits and decide how many of these a corn should display to be considered pure (if all the traits were required, we could never introduce any new morph, for instance, if we included known patterns as a trait, the tessera morph could never have been considered pure)
4) Assume that all snakes of which we don't know if they have had other species / hybrids in their lineage and that match the traits decided in step 3 are not hybrids. We need a base to start off with - as we cannot prove or disprove whether or not snakes had any hybridization in their lineage, we'll have to start this based off an assumption.
5) Have a world-wide database where people can enter their breeding data (snake id, parents, genetics, traits, etc.) to create an overview of the lineage of all snakes from the moment the database is opened.


I realize that this would take years upon years upon years to set up, but judging from all the discussions regarding morphs and people questioning their purity, this is a big deal for many people.

I'd love to hear what you guys think of setting up such a definition / database (I'm aware that some of these are already in use, although I haven't yet heard of a global one). If enough people agree, I hope we can set up a definition together using all the combined knowledge of any corn snake keeper who wishes to share it :)
Click to expand...

Can we please stop making this a personal issue or attack and simply get back on track to what this original discussion was about? I'm very interested in hearing the answers from everyone here on these issues. You've heard my take on the matter, but don't be surprised if I question you so I can understand better where your coming from. I don't like to assume I know where someone is coming from as the message can sometimes be interpreted in more than one way.
 
Personally, I think that after about 50 or so generations from the original hybrid pairing, that the "hybrid" blood would be so diluted that we would no longer be able to tell the difference. That doesn't mean however that some time down the road, that markers would not pop up. But, we see many strange things within the area of "pure" corns, that do not exactly look like the larger majority of the corn snakes out there. With certain morphs having a slightly different head shape/body size, etc. But, that is one of the reasons that I love corns so much, there is just as much diversity in them as there are in humans, perhaps more.
 
On another note, we cannot assume that our snakes do not have some hybrid blood in them, especially if their ancestors range overlapped the range of snakes that corns are known to hybridize(intergrade) with.
 
No real way to answer this. A glass of milk into a pitcher of water is a mixture, a glass in a swimming pool is probably not. The solution to pollution is dilution, but best not to get "polluted" in the first place. Also, factor in that emoryi and slowinskii are pretty much corns, whereas a kingsnake is far from one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top