• 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
I was just reading that about emoryi, and slowinskii. I thought it was very interesting, especially since one of my identification books actually has a picture of an emoryi and is calling it a corn snake... (which always confused me).
 
They were, until the last classification split. There are splitters and lumpers in taxonomy, some look for differences and others similarities. These two species had long been corns, then they were split as a subspecies. The latest split moved them as entirely different species. From a hobbyist's perspective, I suspect subspecies is probably closest to "correct," but have not seen the data they are making these decisions on.
 
If taxonomists move away from the biological species concept to the phylogenetic species concept we may see sub-species elevated to species level, as that concept favors splitting into small groups and typically doesn't recognize the sub-species designation.
 
I have a question for those that believe, "If a snake has any hybrid ancestor, no matter how many generations ago, it's still a hybrid."

What do you think about animals recognized as species and also the result of hybrid speciation by the scientific community? I'm just asking as to try and gain some insight into the thought processes of some of you gals and guys regarding that question.I have a question for those that believe, "If a snake has any hybrid ancestor, no matter how many generations ago, it's still a hybrid."
To think a mere 300 million years ago reptiles came on the scene. Its pretty awe inspiring to me or to think that 2-3 millions years ago Homo Habilis and Homo erectus co-existed... but no Homo sapiens existed....
 
[QOUTE]If a snake has any hybrid ancestor, no matter how many generations ago, it's still a hybrid.[/QUOTE]

Please define hybrid in this instance.

What should Mother Nature do with examples of cornsnake where two naturally occurring subspecies overlap and thus what we people with words and books and definitions call say they are what- hybrids?
Not so long ago Rosy Rats were a different subspecies then they are classified as today. And slowinskii used to be a cornsnake.
Which definition of "hybrid" are we using today?
 
I can say at least five sentences in a row without using the word hybrid.
 
Is the term hybrid a slang term for a British person that is feeling the effects of the chemical interactions of drugs with their brains? I would have thought they were called "High Brits"
 
I don't normally drink or do drugs, but tonight, I decided to mainline some hybrid. I am in another world, bro. Seeing things from another species' perspective. The fluorescent bulbs are loud and the moths look tasty.
 
The problem with hybrids is that they introduce traits in the captive cornsnake population that is not desirable.

I do not think aggressiveness, musking and the habit of eating other snakes is typical for a cornsnake.
 
Carpe Serpentis said:
To think a mere 300 million years ago reptiles came on the scene. Its pretty awe inspiring to me or to think that 2-3 millions years ago Homo Habilis and Homo erectus co-existed... but no Homo sapiens existed....
Click to expand...
That's not relevant to the discussion in hand. It's evolution rather than the deliberate cross-breeding of two different species in captivity. Not the same process at all.

And Homo sapiens is not a hybrid of Homo habilis and Homo erectus. Homo habilis may have (still disputed) evolved into a number of Homo forms and then eventually Homo erectus. Homo erectus then seems to have evolved into other forms from which Homo sapiens evolved. Homo erectus is much younger than Homo habilis.

Evolution and hybridisation are different processes and the development of modern humans illustrates this rather well. Recent developments in mitochondrial DNA analysis tend to show that evolving hominid species replaced existing ones, rather than developing them through cross-breeding. The same evidence shows that there is some Neanderthal DNA in modern human populations, but that Neanderthals bred into the existing and eventually dominant Homo sapiens, rather than combining to produce a third hybrid species.

Deliberate captive hybridisation does not in any way mimic a natural process of evolution. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but neither is it the inevitable or natural process that people seem to be implying.
 
bitsy said:
That's not relevant to the discussion in hand. It's evolution rather than the deliberate cross-breeding of two different species in captivity. Not the same process at all.

And Homo sapiens is not a hybrid of Homo habilis and Homo erectus. Homo habilis may have (still disputed) evolved into a number of Homo forms and then eventually Homo erectus. Homo erectus then seems to have evolved into other forms from which Homo sapiens evolved. Homo erectus is much younger than Homo habilis.

Evolution and hybridisation are different processes and the development of modern humans illustrates this rather well. Recent developments in mitochondrial DNA analysis tend to show that evolving hominid species replaced existing ones, rather than developing them through cross-breeding. The same evidence shows that there is some Neanderthal DNA in modern human populations, but that Neanderthals bred into the existing and eventually dominant Homo sapiens, rather than combining to produce a third hybrid species.

Deliberate captive hybridisation does not in any way mimic a natural process of evolution. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but neither is it the inevitable or natural process that people seem to be implying.
Click to expand...

Very well said Bitsy!
 
BloodyBaroness said:
Then why do you keep them if you think it's unethical?
Click to expand...

Because I am a selfish human being. We all are in that matter.

By the way, that I say snake keeping is more unethical does not mean I think it is very unethical. But keeping animals in cages in general ain't for the best of the animal mostly, and since we keep them from doing whatever they want, as they (their sibs in the wild) would in nature, to me it is unethical. Yet that does not mean we can provide them a good life to compensate for that.

Breeding hybrids does not make the snakes feel bad/worse than breeding them to the same subspecies, so to me that is less unethical than keeping animals in cages in general.
 
bitsy said:
That's not relevant to the discussion in hand. It's evolution rather than the deliberate cross-breeding of two different species in captivity. Not the same process at all.

And Homo sapiens is not a hybrid of Homo habilis and Homo erectus. Homo habilis may have (still disputed) evolved into a number of Homo forms and then eventually Homo erectus. Homo erectus then seems to have evolved into other forms from which Homo sapiens evolved. Homo erectus is much younger than Homo habilis.

Evolution and hybridisation are different processes and the development of modern humans illustrates this rather well. Recent developments in mitochondrial DNA analysis tend to show that evolving hominid species replaced existing ones, rather than developing them through cross-breeding. The same evidence shows that there is some Neanderthal DNA in modern human populations, but that Neanderthals bred into the existing and eventually dominant Homo sapiens, rather than combining to produce a third hybrid species.

Deliberate captive hybridisation does not in any way mimic a natural process of evolution. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but neither is it the inevitable or natural process that people seem to be implying.
Click to expand...

People choose which snakes we breed, so which have offspring. Those snakes are best fit in their environment to have their genes continued. I do see a similarity to evolution. And further, if a couple of hybrids in a population are better fit to survive than a pure snake in the same population, it's gonna spread its genes in that population if it cross breeds. Hence the population is gonna chance. To me that is evolution.
 
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evolution

I do not believe it would be evolution. If man is putting together species that would never breed in the wild, then it is man made and not natural selection. It is a Frankenstein so to speak. Man would have to manipulate the environment and circumstances to trick the two species into mating. A cali king would never breed with a corn snake in the wild, more than likely the king would consume the corn snake first and for most.

I believe some need new lessons in evolution. We can't just pick and chose which parts of it we want to believe to fit our argument. It is an all or nothing subject.
 
starsevol said:
Barbara, I just have to ask...do you think keeping snakes in cages is unethical overall? Or just keeping snakes co habbed in small cages under constant stress WHICH YOU HAVE ACTUALLY ADVOCATED IN THE PAST???
In every single co habbing thread, there you were defending the practice. Has something changed?
Click to expand...

I have not advocated it, I have tried to explain why many people over here think different about co-habbing than many over here do. Yet that does not mean that I don't see why keeping animals in cages to begin with can be seen as unethical. My boyfriend for example is quite much against it, yet he realises that snakes, as animals that 90% of their time actually lay in one place if they are fed regularly, might cope with it better than let's say, a bird. Further they are less developed and cannot feel bad or sad or be bored. But let us not get too off topic, I answered your question I think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top