For what should be OBVIOUS reasons, I am moving this thread to the Cultivars (morphs)/Genetics Issues forum.
And if I may make a comment or three here, I actually think it is very rare these days for ANY new mutation to show up in the corn snake without someone yelping that it must be a hybrid. Seriously, WHO exactly ARE the people to make these kinds of snap decisions with no more direct hands-on experience with the animals than the man in the moon? Personally, I would be very curious to see how many of such proclamations wind up pointing to the same small group of persons whose apparent goal is to just spread doubt and engage in malicious mischief for their own personal or professional reasons.
Actually, I've never understood the logic that they use to come to the conclusion that apparently the ONLY way to come up with a new mutation is via outcrossing the corn snake with a completely different species. If that theory were true, why weren't we completely bombarded by a plethora of new mutations when years ago it was all the rage to breed so many of the various species of tri-colored Lampropeltis together? Remember all the hybrids generated using L. ruthveni, L. campbelli, L. alterna, etc., etc? And why are we not seeing such genetic aberrations in TODAY's purposeful breedings of corn snakes to not only different species, but completely different GENERA? Sorry, but REAL logic dictates that you just cannot have one situation without the other. And if I may be so bold to suggest, if hybridization is apparently the ONLY way to generate new color and pattern mutations in the corn snake, then what law of nature is it that dictates that it can ONLY happen when done in a nefarious manner employing subterfuge and deception?
Seriously, how many people PURPOSELY hybridizing the corn snake have produced a bonafide new genetic trait by doing so? Anyone?
And if I may make a comment or three here, I actually think it is very rare these days for ANY new mutation to show up in the corn snake without someone yelping that it must be a hybrid. Seriously, WHO exactly ARE the people to make these kinds of snap decisions with no more direct hands-on experience with the animals than the man in the moon? Personally, I would be very curious to see how many of such proclamations wind up pointing to the same small group of persons whose apparent goal is to just spread doubt and engage in malicious mischief for their own personal or professional reasons.
Actually, I've never understood the logic that they use to come to the conclusion that apparently the ONLY way to come up with a new mutation is via outcrossing the corn snake with a completely different species. If that theory were true, why weren't we completely bombarded by a plethora of new mutations when years ago it was all the rage to breed so many of the various species of tri-colored Lampropeltis together? Remember all the hybrids generated using L. ruthveni, L. campbelli, L. alterna, etc., etc? And why are we not seeing such genetic aberrations in TODAY's purposeful breedings of corn snakes to not only different species, but completely different GENERA? Sorry, but REAL logic dictates that you just cannot have one situation without the other. And if I may be so bold to suggest, if hybridization is apparently the ONLY way to generate new color and pattern mutations in the corn snake, then what law of nature is it that dictates that it can ONLY happen when done in a nefarious manner employing subterfuge and deception?
Seriously, how many people PURPOSELY hybridizing the corn snake have produced a bonafide new genetic trait by doing so? Anyone?