Cross breeding, need help. [Archive]

Stefan-A

10-05-2009, 10:25 AM

in the next few years when my checkered albino is of mating age is it frowned down upon to say mix it with a floriday blue? is that considered simple cross breeding or is that what's called a hybrid, or is hybrid only when 2 totally different snakes mate such as corn snake mating with a kingsnake or garter bred with a water snake? My other question is where can I get info on what would the babies look like and be called if a checkered albino was bred to a florida blue as an example?
I certainly wouldn't do it, it is hybridisation.

gregmonsta

10-05-2009, 10:45 AM

Albino Florida blues already exists ... and aren't hybrids .... I certainly am not interested in any hybrids.

Philminator

10-05-2009, 10:57 AM

ah ok so best to keep the same species together then, thanks.

mustang

10-06-2009, 11:08 AM

gregmonsta

10-06-2009, 11:16 AM

ok iv heard a lot of critisism but i too am really curios as to why cross breeding is so bad i mean there are lots of animals people cross breed for pets like dogs, tegus(red-black& white), and many other animals...is it a risk for deformations/deffects, or the possability that some idiot would release one, maybe it goes against personal morals? i do not mean to sound rude or anything like that its just curiosoty.

Do we really want the same mess that dogs are in? Dogs that need cesarians, have bad spinal problems, etc.
It could really be detrimental to the hobby too - What if they are mislabelled or if you end up polluting someone's personal collection.
I can understand intergrades but even these (along with natural hybridisation) are not often reported.
To be frank there is really no need to 'play God' when the range of garters available is already so broad and varied that there's no need to add to it.

Stefan-A

10-06-2009, 12:25 PM

ok iv heard a lot of critisism but i too am really curios as to why cross breeding is so bad i mean there are lots of animals people cross breed for pets like dogs, tegus(red-black& white), and many other animals...is it a risk for deformations/deffects, or the possability that some idiot would release one, maybe it goes against personal morals? i do not mean to sound rude or anything like that its just curiosoty.
Mixing is an endless source of trouble best prevented. It can only end in people not knowing what they have. Hybrids also have a tendency to have an incredibly variable viability and fertility, depending on the species that are crossed. Depending on the cross, deformations, defects and dysfunction of various organs are serious risks. Dogs are a poor comparison, they are all members of the same species and the result of selective breeding, they are not hybrids. They are more of a warning of what might happen, if selective breeding is conducted with complete disregard for the well-being of the animals.

That some "idiot" (accidents do happen) might release one, is indeed a concern. While it's doubtful that they would cause serious harm, it's not impossible.

I don't think morals even need to enter into it, there are very good practical reasons not to cross species.

mustang

10-07-2009, 11:06 AM

well all dogs are same family....people breed this wierd dog thats a wolf hybird (stupid once they mature you gatta lay down on them for a long time so they submit to ur domanince), tegus (red and black and white, horses and donkeys for mules, but i do see valid point....who dosnt want to play god tho...and if its in a controlled enviorment with best possable care and a responsable owner i dtill dont see whats all that wrong...but i do see the more of the dark side of cross breeding but id love more opinions and comments...i was thinkn for a while about crossing a flordia blue stripe (yes i know its a morph) with a rd spotted garter....but iv pretty much given up on that idea....untill im in my 40s and out of school and have the time to get the permits....if i havent been talked out of it that is.

Calift

10-07-2009, 11:44 AM

It is not the same as other pets....since as previously mentioned, all dog breeds belong to the same species....they are simply an example of extreme divergence (and artificial selection)! In general, mutts are actually healthier than purebreds (yay heterozygous advantage?), but thats a whole other conversation and doesn't apply to your question.

Anyway- the thing about mixing snake species that bothers me is if they escape (which does happen ie. florida). The newly created species (as non-native ones) can be highly invasive and ruin the local populations. If it wouldn't naturally occur, there can't be any good that comes with creating it. Of course, hybrids can be very cool looking and I do have to admit I probably wouldn't turn one down (hmm jungle corns!), but I also wouldn't ever breed my own...there are several mechanisms that nature has in place for regulating species and preventing hybrids from occurring that may cause them to have decreased health as well (ie. sterility/inviability).

KITKAT

10-07-2009, 04:15 PM

well all dogs are same family....people breed this wierd dog thats a wolf hybird (stupid once they mature you gatta lay down on them for a long time so they submit to ur domanince)

I know this is off topic, but I can't ignore the mis-information you have just written above. Dogs are Canis lupis familiaris. Wolves are Canis lupis. Therefore, dog x wolf breedings are not true hybrids and the species of both dog and wolf are the same. The dog is a subspecies. For this reason, responsible people who work with animals that are part wolf and part dog, call them wolfdogs, and do not call them wolf hybrids.

Also, I don't know where you got your info about "lay(ing) down on them for a long time so they submit to your dominance". I think what you may be describing is an "alpha roll", which is a training technique that used to be done with dogs of any breed. The alpha roll involved rolling the dog over on its back and holding its throat with your hand for a SHORT time. Here is information about this training technique and why it is NOT PROPER to use it!

The Alpha Roll - LoveToKnow Dogs (http://dogs.lovetoknow.com/wiki/The_Alpha_Roll)#

Stefan-A

10-07-2009, 04:38 PM

I know this is off topic, but I can't ignore the mis-information you have just written above. Dogs are Canis lupis familiaris. Wolves are Canis lupis. Therefore, dog x wolf breedings are not true hybrids and the species of both dog and wolf are the same. The dog is a subspecies. For this reason, responsible people who work with animals that are part wolf and part dog, call them wolfdogs, and do not call them wolf hybrids.

All Canis lupus subspecies are grey wolves, dogs included. In the dog's case, I consider its classification as a subspecies highly questionable and I personally wouldn't rank it higher than a form (Forma).

Subspecies of Canis lupus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus)

drache

10-07-2009, 06:55 PM

and if its in a controlled enviorment with best possable care and a responsable owner i dtill dont see whats all that wrong...
the very most responsible owner can have something happen that's beyond their control - like have a freak accident or die of a heart attack
the only true controlled environment would be one that is highly secure as a facility, where meticulous records are being kept, and more than one person knows exactly what's going on, or at least how to glean it from the records
I can't imagine that that applies to you, or most of us on the forum (not me, for sure)
so let's just do our best to protect the natural state of these animals and keep the god playing to the realm of inanimate objects

mustang

10-07-2009, 08:34 PM

ok thanks for info...

aSnakeLovinBabe

10-07-2009, 10:06 PM

my only question issss...

who does want to play god?!

Stefan-A

10-07-2009, 10:55 PM

who does want to play god?!
I don't know, there are days when it doesn't seem like such a bad idea.

ConcinusMan

10-08-2009, 03:28 AM

I'm glad I stumbled upon this post. I was going to ask a similar question but not about crossing different thamnophis species. That's nuts.

If all the various subspecies of Thamnophis sirtalis are indeed the same species, then there really shouldn't be an issue with breeding (even if it has to be done artificially) say, a s.f. garter with a concinnus or ca red-sided? Afterall, there are pictures on the web of snakes that appear to be the result of two different subspecies producing offspring together.

Stefan-A

10-08-2009, 03:53 AM

If all the various subspecies of Thamnophis sirtalis are indeed the same species, then there really shouldn't be an issue with breeding (even if it has to be done artificially) say, a s.f. garter with a concinnus or ca red-sided?
Not really, the same problems with keeping track of those hybrids would still exist even if physical problems, such as reduced viability, would be less likely to occur.

I don't try to speak for everybody, but it probably matters to most of us what we have. You don't really see any of us here intentionally breeding animals to each other simply based on species. Most, if not all, seem to want to make sure that their snakes only mate with individuals of the same subspecies. Personally, I wouldn't even consider buying a garter, if I didn't know its subspecies with a some amount of certainty. I've made that mistake in the past and I'm glad those snakes never reproduced. As far as I'm concerned (and I want to stress that this is only an opinion), hybrids, whether they're between species or within a species, are only good as feeders.

gregmonsta

10-08-2009, 08:00 AM

a s.f. garter with a concinnus or ca red-sided?

Why .... why, why, why? You'll either get a litter that looks like either parent or just an undistinguishable mishmash ... garters are colourful and beautiful as they are. You won't find me intentionally buying any hybrid or subspecies cross.

mustang

10-08-2009, 10:57 AM

my only question issss...

who does want to play god?!
beceaus...welll who wouldnt and i thought it would be interesting since all garter & ribons (excluding the indoniesan ones) are all the same family/genus of thamnophis just different individual species. and i loved the way that red spotted and flordia blues look but if i had offspring of the two they would look amazing even if they had only a little of each parent!

gregmonsta

10-08-2009, 04:27 PM

mtolypetsupply

10-08-2009, 11:38 PM

beceaus...welll who wouldnt and i thought it would be interesting since all garter & ribons (excluding the indoniesan ones) are all the same family/genus of thamnophis just different individual species. and i loved the way that red spotted and flordia blues look but if i had offspring of the two they would look amazing even if they had only a little of each parent!

I see your point, and I so want a PURPLE garter. So why not work with erythrystic easterns, and florida blue easterns????

If you get a lovely, PURPLE one out of that, LET ME KNOW!!!

Seriously, you can work with the genetics within each subspecies, and the genetics of it aren't difficult to understand.

So the best question in my mind, is what EXACTLY are you looking for in a new, innovative garter??? That question isn't rhetorical, please do answer, there are many knowledgeable folk on here who can point you toward a breeding project you'll LOVE!!!!!

And to the knowledgeable folk, HOW DO I GET MY PURPLE GARTER??? LOL :):):):)

gregmonsta

10-09-2009, 07:05 AM

:rolleyes: really? ... try harder! ... oh .... and here's a purple ordinoides (no perverting nature on this one :p ) ... again, there's no need to turn this into a subspecies breeding orgy.

http://www.thamnophis.com/thamphotos/data//597/05-24-2008HCHSimage-Northwestern_Garter_Rudolph1_Hunter_Creek_area_Del _Norte_County_.JPG

Stefan-A

10-09-2009, 10:52 AM

And to the knowledgeable folk, HOW DO I GET MY PURPLE GARTER??? LOL :):):):)
Luck or selective breeding. :p

ConcinusMan

10-11-2009, 02:23 PM

Why .... why, why, why? You'll either get a litter that looks like either parent or just an undistinguishable mishmash ... garters are colourful and beautiful as they are. You won't find me intentionally buying any hybrid or subspecies cross.

Don't misunderstand. I wouldn't do it and I'm not planning on it. I totally agree with you and Stefan-A. I was trying to point out (and perhaps clarify what we mean by sub-species) that if they are indeed the same species then there shouldn't be any genetic issues with the offspring. It was my understanding that T. sirtalis are all the same species, regardless of subspecies, and that subspecies amounts to nothing more than race. So, it would be no different than 2 people of different races having offspring. Personally, I have doubts that all sirtalis are indeed the same species, genetically, not catagorically speaking. If I am drawing the wrong parallels let me know.

aSnakeLovinBabe

10-11-2009, 04:17 PM

Personally, I have doubts that all sirtalis are indeed the same species.

I second that.

adamanteus

10-11-2009, 04:23 PM

Third.:D:rolleyes:

aSnakeLovinBabe

10-11-2009, 04:39 PM

They are jut far too diverse, not just looks though, even in their actions! Especially the pickeringii. When I look at my pugets, then look at my easterns... then over at the cali red sideds.... well, you get the idea.

Stefan-A

10-11-2009, 11:15 PM

Personally, I have doubts that all sirtalis are indeed the same species, genetically, not catagorically speaking. If I am drawing the wrong parallels let me know.
I have doubts that the species concept itself is valid.

ConcinusMan

10-12-2009, 05:05 AM

I guess a line has to drawn somewhere. Approximately 98% of our DNA is present in chimps' DNA. In other words, genetically speaking, we are 98% chimp. It's the other 2% that makes us human; a separate species. Recently extinct (in geologic time, around 30,000 yrs ago) species of our genus HOMO such as Homo erectus are actually in many circles considered a subspecies of Homo sapiens called H. sapiens neandertalensis. Others consider us to be a separate species. There is even some evidence that neanderthals contributed some genes to modern humans prior to leaving africa and evidence that cross breeding did occur at some time and locations.

My point is even if it happened far in the past; cross breeding erectus with sapiens; even though they are considered separated only by subspecies; it's fairly apparent that it would still be considered cross breeding. We now have the fortune of being the only species OR subspecies of Homo left on earth. So, the various human "races" we see on earth amount to nothing but a "form" of the same species as Stefan-A mentioned when speaking of grey wolves compared to modern dogs.

All that said, DNA or RNA mapping of all the so-called sub-species of Thamnophis sirtalis has not been done completely(as far as I know) and for now, I consider the various sub-species of sirtalis to be far enough separated to be treated as seperate species; far enough apart as we are apart from neanderthals even though successful breeding and healthy offspring can be produced by crossing the two.

Don't even get me started on plants. Broccoli and cauliflower and brussel sprouts are considered the same species. All modern lettuce varieties are the same species as inedible wild lettuce and often the two cross breed. All of this just reaffirms my belief that evolution does happen, even if life was created rather than spontaneously generated.

drache

10-12-2009, 05:39 AM

I have doubts that the species concept itself is valid.
it really is just a concept

Stefan-A

10-12-2009, 06:46 AM

I guess a line has to drawn somewhere.
But does it, really? Under some circumstances, I can see the advantage of working with a simple snapshot of the current situation, but it's not helpful when time needs to be taken into consideration. What I mean by this, is that there's no place to draw the line between generations, in order to separate one species from the previous, or the next. The result of such an attempt is that the two species get separated based on an almost arbitrary difference. And in my opinion, a valid system wouldn't have that problem.

Approximately 98% of our DNA is present in chimps' DNA. In other words, genetically speaking, we are 98% chimp. It's the other 2% that makes us human; a separate species.Here's the problem: Our ancestors diverged a few million years ago. Assuming that we could point at a generation and declare that that's where the two lines separated, what percentage actually set the two lines apart? It would have to be so minimal, that we couldn't even distinguish it.

Considering that subspecies are diverging, you might as well treat them as full species. Isolated populations, too. If they don't become extinct, or once again connected to the parent population, they will continue to diverge. They are already on that road and that's why I don't make a distinction between creating hybrids between species, and creating hybrids between subspecies.

So, the various human "races" we see on earth amount to nothing but a "form" of the same species as Stefan-A mentioned when speaking of grey wolves compared to modern dogs.I'm inclined to agree, but I'd say that even the term "form" would be too strong to describe the human "races". Our most recent common ancestor was a mere 5000 years ago and we have essentially no reproductive isolation. Like a popular science magazine stated in a recent issue, there are fewer genetic differences between any two humans in the world, than between two gorillas from the same forest.

mustang

10-12-2009, 08:06 AM

just out of curiosoty if we (like the grizzly/polar bear incedents) as in a sick twistede individual was to mate with a chimp would an old / new species be formed/reformed?

Stefan-A

10-12-2009, 08:24 AM

just out of curiosoty if we (like the grizzly/polar bear incedents) as in a sick twistede individual was to mate with a chimp would an old / new species be formed/reformed?
The Soviets tried it, doesn't work.

Humanzee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee)

charles parenteau

10-12-2009, 08:46 AM

Buy a pair !

ConcinusMan

10-12-2009, 02:42 PM

OK, so it doesn't work. My conclusion then is that there is definitely a distinction and we are indeed separate species. But it does work (crossing subspecies) for sirtalis, so...

I guess the question still remains. Are the various subs of T. sirtalis different enough from one another that they should be considered separate species or not?

Hmm... intriguing.

Stefan-A

10-12-2009, 03:28 PM

I guess the question still remains. Are the various subs of T. sirtalis different enough from one another that they should be considered separate species or not?
Depends on the definition.

mustang

10-13-2009, 10:54 AM

left part of my brain: ME NO LIKE BIOLOGY....TOOO MANY BIG WORDS TO MEMORIZE!!!!!!!!!!

mustang

10-13-2009, 10:55 AM

right part of my brain: i passed with an 86 overall so lefty get over yourself

aSnakeLovinBabe

10-13-2009, 03:27 PM

Considering that subspecies are diverging, you might as well treat them as full species. Isolated populations, too. If they don't become extinct, or once again connected to the parent population, they will continue to diverge. They are already on that road and that's why I don't make a distinction between creating hybrids between species, and creating hybrids between subspecies.

I have never felt there should be a distinction for this exact reason! well said :D

ConcinusMan

10-15-2009, 01:04 AM

Aha! I second that. For some reason, I just now understood that.

Steven@HumboldtHerps

11-21-2009, 09:51 PM

I deem it important that anyone who is concerned about the ethics or implications of "hybridizing" take the time to learn more biology. If you can't find the time to learn the big words (no offense, science lingo isn't for everybody), don't go messing with Mother Nature on your own. Please take the educated advice that has been so often repeated in this thread alone. Don't "hybridize" or intergrade.

Just simple cladistics like:

Steven@HumboldtHerps

11-21-2009, 10:32 PM

...where A,B,C,D, and E are monophyleic groups (upper left), where A,C, D, and E are paraphyletic groups (upper right), and C and D are polyphyletic groups. Every taxonomist is happy when he or she narrows it down to a monophyletic group (all descendents and common ancestors are addressed)
We are not happy with the para and the poly, but Thamnophis apparently still has us in turmoil with this.

Let's play pretend, and postulate what factors might explain the theory that elegans and ordinoides may share a more immediate common ancestor. We will also assume that there have been rare hybrids between the two. We will call the common ancestor of all "A". Let geographical area "X" (home to A) geologically split into areas "Y" and "Z" (assume habitat and dietary changes). After a period of isolation, let us assume that the divergence creates 2 new species, neither of which we will yet officially call ordinoides or elegans. They do not meet due to geographical barriers that now exist. Use the nodes that precede B and C, D and E; let's call the left node (B's and C's) the ordinoides line and the right (D's and E's) the elegans line.

Important (for this to make sense). Do not assume that the two separate lines break into their subsequent letters on the same geological time scale.

For that matter, imagine that the lines split into B and C, D and E pretty early on. Now let's say B is the ordinoides we know of today, and C is assumed a modern ordinoides, but still has some marginal genetic traits (possibly dormant) reminiscent of its old ancestor A... and we have not yet observed it! We will still call both B and C ordinoides because we know no better! Now, let's do the same for the elegans line; let's say that E is the modern elegans and D is an elegans with reminiscent traits of A (and we don't see it). If we change the geography again as does happen over time, let's say C and D meet, and they make babies!!! Yay! They had enough genetics in common to... ARE YOU GOING TO CALL IT A HYBRID???

I know this example was kind of silly, but it may be one of many that illustrates how variably inheritance plays itself out. We also can't discount the likelihood of convergent evolution among garters. Two separate species might look very similar due to a specific habitat and diet they both share. They might not be able to breed, but that might not stop them from looking alike.

Stefan originally turned me on to this study by Brownikowski and Arnold. I am not going to go into detail, but it really helps put the elegans world into perspective. You seriously begin to think about multiple migrations when you look at the map.

Stefan-A

11-22-2009, 03:43 AM

We also can't discount the likelihood of convergent evolution among garters. Two separate species might look very similar due to a specific habitat and diet they both share. They might not be able to breed, but that might not stop them from looking alike.
You can probably guess what went through my mind when I saw this picture in your other thread:

http://www.humboldtherps.com/images/20090615HCHSimage-T._e._elegans_GPS-COYOTE-ELEGANS-01_.JPG
Coast Garter (T. e. terrestris) terrestris and elegans intergrade zone] Bald Hills, RNP, Humboldt Co. (June 15, 2009)

It looks remarkably like some of my vagrans, the main difference being the much more well-defined dorsal stripe. There are also some other differences, like the amount of brown, but that's still well within what I would consider normal variation for vagrans.

ConcinusMan

11-22-2009, 03:52 AM

Not much different that these two:
Most of us on the forum know the typical features of individual species and ssp. The following pics (I may have posted some before) are of more anomalous specimens. Would love to hear you input.

This one has some infernalis traits http://www.humboldtherps.com/images/CA_Red-sided_X_Northwestern_B1_-_Mad_River_pump_station_-_04-15-2007.jpg

I am pretty sure this is a terrestris, but I have never seen such light lateral/ventrals on this ssp. before...http://www.humboldtherps.com/images/garter_hybrid1A_poss._terrestris_X_infernalis_-_van_duzen_river_-_humboldt_county_-_07-01-2007.jpg

Oh really? are you sure you haven't see it before?

Steven@HumboldtHerps

11-24-2009, 03:45 AM

Not much different that these two:

Oh really? are you sure you haven't see it before?

What exactly are you referring to...?

ConcinusMan

11-24-2009, 04:00 AM

You said "I am pretty sure this is a terrestris, but I have never seen such light lateral/ventrals on this ssp. before..."

and then someone quoted you from another thread, showing a different terrestris and the latteral stripes/ventrals in that pic are very light too.

Steven@HumboldtHerps

11-24-2009, 01:26 PM

Okay, I get it... But if you look at that last terrestris pic, the laterals on that snake are a much lighter (almost white) color than the others. It's a trait, which in my area, I have only seen in T. s. infernalis; these snakes often have laterals which look like the colors of the lateral stripe have fused with the color of the ventrals (no division by darker pigmentation / no color change). The previous terrestris pic, the brown (cream striped) one from the Bald Hills, shows pigmented division between the colors of the lateral stripe and the ventrals. I'll try to be more specific in my comparisons next time.

The mystery continues. I won't completely assume that the local infernalis and terrestris are genetically exchanging appearances; it could just be convergence. Still, the possibilities are limitless. Humboldt, Mendocino, and Del Norte County are a melting pot for countless variants. And of course, if the definition of a species is indeed blurred here, and all of these "races" are actually just one or two or three species (instead of the local total of four), that wouldn't be a problem then regarding so-called hybrids; we would then only be dealing with a whole new onslaught of ssp. intergrades.