Dendroboard banner

1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I know this sounds stupid, but what's the difference between Banded Leucomelas and British Guyana Leucomelas? And is it okay to keep them together? What if they breed?
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,316 Posts
They're different morphs, though both collected from British Guyana.

Most keepers think that keeping morphs pure is the best breeding strategy. Those of us who see all the junky hybrids/crosses/intergrades in the larger herp hobby as detrimental to the hobby, and a waste of animals whose wild populations are declining because of pet trade collection, are strongly against such thoughtless breeding. For example, Lampropeltis ruthveni ( a mountain kingsnake) is like this, and they are now illegal to export from their native range so the hobby wrecked the captive population irreversibly.

Another important reason to keep morphs and locales pure is because taxonomy is in flux, and distinct morphs could well turn out to be distinct species once they are understood better. This happened to Ranitomeya not long ago, where some locales of a species were split into another species.

If a person kept them together and culled all the eggs, it would be harder to find fault with the cohabitation itself, but that culling would be distasteful to many people. Personally, I don't see any reason to house them together.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
836 Posts
Are those 2 morphs both "wild-type"? Like, are they sympatrically-occurring expressions of phenotypic variability. Or are they allopatric "locality morphs"? Or is one or the other a product of selective breeding, thus more or less on its way to "domestication"?

Those of us who see all the junky hybrids/crosses/intergrades in the larger herp hobby as detrimental to the hobby, and a waste of animals whose wild populations are declining because of pet trade collection, are strongly against such thoughtless breeding. For example, Lampropeltis ruthveni ( a mountain kingsnake) is like this, and they are now illegal to export from their native range so the hobby wrecked the captive population irreversibly.
There's a lot to unpack here. I agree it's a pity that wild-phenotype ruthveni are pretty much unavailable on the private market, and I have never been into albinos, hybrids, or any such horseshit. The fact that albinos popped up at all in this species' US captive population is probably a function of tiny founder size in the captive population:
  • Mexico has been closed a LONG time to wild animal export, the period of overlap between legal export and routine colubrid culture (getting eggs from WC's, hatching eggs, getting babies started, raising babies to healthy adults, and getting eggs from CBB's) was VERY short (in fact such a period might never have existed),
  • even if one was motivated after that to go catch some and bring them back illegally, the native range of ruthveni has long been sketchy to visit and nowadays it's pretty horrendous, and finally
  • they are a normal kingsnake, i.e. damned hard to locate out in the woods, and that animal lives in some pretty rugged and hard to access country (even without the chances of getting your head, hands, or cock & balls cut off).
But saying ruthveni is (or ever was) declining because of illegal collection is absurd. Further, there was never any chance whatsoever that captive-produced animals were going to be released back into the wild in some sort of demographic or genetic rescue effort. Besides the fact it's simply not warranted, from a species persistence standpoint. So really the only problem resulting from artificial selection for albinism is that pet keepers can no longer get normal-phenotype animals, except perhaps from overseas zoo stock. There's no threat to the wild population, and the North American zoo community isn't suffering either.

I imagine it would work like this for frogs too: a guy who buys some frogs from Christ knows where, and keeps them in the same room as God knows what else has been in - his animals are NEVER going to be used to contribute to any sort of species studbook. But personally, just from an aesthetic standpoint - I like the variety found in nature, and always seek to keep it around. So I fully agree with this part:

Most keepers think that keeping morphs pure is the best breeding strategy. ... all the junky hybrids/crosses/intergrades in the larger herp hobby (are) detrimental to the hobby
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,316 Posts
Or are they allopatric "locality morphs"?
This, I believe.

Mexico has been closed a LONG time to wild animal export,
My understanding is that the doors closed in the late 80s. I keep knoblochi, the founding captive US population of which was said to be collected in the mid 80s. In Hubbs' Mt Kings book, he says that ruthveni were first collected for the US trade in 1982.

But saying ruthveni is (or ever was) declining because of illegal collection is absurd.
I sure didn't mean to imply that. You're right, of course -- all the Mexican colubrids came into the US in small numbers. I tried to say that the captive stocks that exist currently are all we have and will have in captivity (i.e. we cannot collect more for captive culture, for the reasons you mention) and I'm told that none of those captive ruthveni are known to be unhybridized. I'm not referring just to the slew of X thayeri, alterna, greeri, mex mex, etc hybrids that are available currently (although all that is bad enough), but the early breeding of ruthveni is said to have involved crosses that were sorted and sold as species by appearance.

My point is that we can't (in many cases, or just shouldn't in others) just get more WC animals -- we need to keep the captive lines we have pure, and available.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
836 Posts
My point is that we can't (in many cases, or just shouldn't in others) just get more WC animals -- we need to keep the captive lines we have pure, and available.
This is a point on which I agree 100%. There are so very many taxa and localities of the things I love, that used to be in routine trade (and stupid cheap, too), which are no longer available. It's a crying shame that they were never established in captivity, because there's no getting any more of them from their native range. Occasionally you will see zoo-bred stock from Russia or whatever - and no, I'm not talking about "laundered" smuggled animals, these are legit CBB - but the founder population is tiny so these animals are really just walking dead, long-term genetically.

So yeah - having people do their part and not wrecking extant captive populations would be very helpful. Sadly, there always seems to be one or two turds in the punchbowl, who are really aggressive about mixing. But at least we can reduce the incidence of clueless, uninformed mixing, by talking openly like this and trying to demonstrate the norms and also the underlying reasons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
247 Posts
This is sometimes problematic, especially when some locales/morphs are in flux. Ranitomeya is a good example genus of this...and while I think that last taxonomic change was positive, I think there is still much more work to be done there. Hobbyists may think diversifying the genetics by breeding the same species together is beneficial, where it may be quite the opposite.

A recent example of this is from some research information I stumbled across (actually, thanks to @Tijl) from Dr. Mathieu Chouteau, where they were crossing different morphs of Ranitomeya to map the genetics of the offspring. This example saw what looked like a R. fantastica "White Banded" crossed with a "True Nominal" (obviously two different locales here, not sure where from though). All the male offspring of these crosses were 100% sterile. This was not the focus of the study, but to me this means that even these locales and morphs may have huge negative impacts when crossing...whether they are different species or not. This could be attributed to outbreeding depression. Source here.
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top