Creamsicle Corn Snake - Elaphe guttata x emoryi

[Rich Z]

Serp,

About point 1, although I can see where you would have gotten that impression from reading those two sentences together I stated, it was not intended to mean I was claiming that Lavender actually came first hand from me. But since all of the Lavenders, as far as I am aware, came from that single original het carrier female that I caught down on the gulf coast of Florida many years ago, I guess I do have a bit of the grandfather instinct when it comes to them.

As far as point 2 is concerned, I am fully aware that everyone breeding whatever animals together probably have very valid justifications in mind when they do so, otherwise they would not be doing it. The most common reason I have heard over the years has been something like "heck, I didn't have anything else to breed to her and didn't want to waste her this season."

And as for point 3, you aren't seriously suggesting that people will not breed them back into cornsnakes sometime down the road, are you? If someone is told (which I am assuming they would be) that those animals are the result of breeding a corn snake to a baird's rat snake, just why would those people think it would be a stupid idea to continue on and breed other cultivars of corn snakes into them?

I am not condemning anyone for what they do. I just have chosen not to myself, and wonder if 10 years from now I may regret that decision. Perhaps, in the long run, it really doesn't matter at all. Once mankind touches anything in nature, it is no longer "natural" anyway, if I understand the meaning of that word. So if I take a corn snake out of the wild, and control what other corn snakes it will mate with, are the offspring still "natural"?

 

[Darin Chappell]

One interesting concept that arises from this discussion concerns the production of future corn x ______ crosses. Let's say that you want to cross a corn with (whatever) to produce a new hybrid of some sort. You're convinced that the mix will produce wonderful babies, and you just know that they'll set the world on fire once they're available!

Your only problem?



There are no more pure corns available for your breeding trials! You'll have to settle for animals that are mostly corn, and hope that their other small drops of (whatever) blood, won't mess up all of your plans.

No pure corns with which to make new hybrids? THAT would be an interesting situation, wouldn' it?

 

[Shaky]

A study

I'd like to see a study done sometime where hybrids are released back into the wild and carefully monitored.
Lets say jungle corns. Release some in, say, Georgia, and some in Western Arizona.
I'm guessing survival of the individual would be fairly routine, but would the hybrids be able to find mates? Is it likely that they'd all just die out, producing NO offspring, or would the females' pheromones excite the local males of both species?
I'm sure that many hybrids have escaped in places where the environment was friendly, but what sort of impact do they have?
I guess what I'm really getting at is that in the near future, if you want a pure corn for any reason, you'll have to go catch a wild one. The species seems unadulterated, and will probably remain so.

 

[kathylove]

"Natual corns""

"Once mankind touches anything in nature, it is no longer "natural" anyway, if I understand the meaning of that word. So if I take a corn snake out of the wild, and control what other corn snakes it will mate with, are the offspring still "natural"?"


That has always been exactly my point. I often get customers who tell me they prefer my "natural" okeetees over all of the "un-natural" morphs. I have always felt that, even though I have (as far as I can determine) kept my okeetee lines pure okeetee, they are still not much more natural than an amel corn. I certainly have been choosing (for MANY generations) very different criteria than Mother Nature would have chosen to continue the line. Selectively bred okeetees certainly are much brighter and more appealing (to the average person, anyway) than a typical wild-caught specimen.

There are some people who argue against amels and other "mutants" as vehemently as others argue against hybrids. Personally, I don't think there is a truly "natural" corn in my collection, except for one wild-caught animal that I have, and he has a little white spot on him, but I guess it occured "naturally" in his case. So I don't see huge differences here. As long as these are more or less domestic animals, and will never be released into the wild, I can only see why keepers would want to KNOW the heritage of their animals, not why they would be so much against somebody producing any particular type. There are several breeds of dogs that I think are really ugly, but I am not against somebody breeding and keeping them!

 

[Darin Chappell]

Kathy,

I don't believe that there is a large number of people who are against others producing morphs, intergrades, or hybrids at any level. I think what most people who have a problem with the above cited groups of snakes worry about, is any of them getting into their own collections unawares.

So, it is not the production of those snakes, but rather what is done with them afterwards that constitutes the real problem. If we could all trust everyone to be conscientious and not infuse cornsnakes with other blood without properly labelling them, there would be no problem at all. But, since we all know that such trust is highly misplaced (because people either don't care or don't know why such distinctions might make a difference to someone buying their hatchlings down the road), many of us have simply determined not to participate in the production of non-pure corns, at least to the best of our abilities.

Even so, I don't begrudge someone making hybrids any more than I get upset about new morphs. Both are "unnatural" in the sense about which you were writing, but one is desireable to me and the other is not. It may well be an arbitrary distinction in the veiw of some, but it is a distinction I (and many others) have made for myself. I guess my only question for those who see nothing wrong with producing hybrids is this: Should I not have the right to expect that my animals be free from whatever genetic influences I do not wish to introduce to my collection/breeding programs? And, if so, how would that be possible for me to insure, without making the distinctions I have?

My producing "pure" corns does absolutely nothing to hinder the person wanting to create new hybrids, but, given the sad state of affairs in the herp world concerning ethics and education in breeding animals, the actions of a hybrid breeder may very well make my efforts nearly impossible some day. My only problem with hybrids is the people who produce and sell them irresponsibly. Unfortunately, I cannot impose an ethics test on all breeders based upon my own standards, so I opt for the next surest thing, and remove myself from the hybrids totally.

I hope I haven't made the issue more cloudy than it already was. Frankly, it is difficult for me to put into words exactly what I believe about the situation.

 

[Shaky]

Wild hybrids?

Does anyone know of wild hybridizing in corns? I've seen examples of P.bairdi x P.o.lindheimeri, and I know that in the obsoleta complex it's fairly common, but how about corns?

Most biologists aver that there is no really pure species, since everything is always changing and evolving. Any individual is only a snapshot of the group in time, and not a perfect definable example of a species anyway.

If hybidizing happens at all, then there is no such thing as "pure."

 

[Rich Z]

Kathy - Since you live in the area where these animals came from, I figure maybe you would know the answers if anyone would.

When you and Bill came up with the original type 'B' Anerythristic (aka "Charcoal", "Muted Anerythristic", and "Pine Island Anerythristic") has there ever been a record of another one turing up in the wild?

The original ancestor of the Caramel gene came from a wild caught animal somewhere near Cape Coral, Florida. Has there ever been a record of a wild caught Caramel Corn?

The original ancestor of the Lavender gene was caught near Punta Gorda, FL. Again, has anyone come up with a wild caught specimen of a Lavender Corn?

I would think it very odd that for all of the sources of those unique genetic lines, there is only ONE source point for them. I mean, what are the odds that I would go down to the Punta Gorda area, catch a corn snake, and this one would just happen to be the ONLY animal in existence (at least from a survivability standpoint) to bring the Lavender gene to light?

 

[kathylove]

Yes, it sure seems to be a hotbed for weird corns in S.W. Florida. Most of the wild caught anerys also came from this area. And the first hypo I ever saw was collected near Tampa. And the little male with the white spot was brought into Glades by a local person. But I have never heard of any other wild caught ones of the types you mention. I am always on the lookout for anything weird, of course, but haven't seen any others. I used to scour Herpetofauna when Tom was here (that was where we bought the original "Pine Island" charcoal) and everyone at Glades knows to call if they get an unusual corn (that's how I got the one with the white spot), but nothing else so far.

 

[carl3]

Chaos (and BPs)

Can anyone ever truly be sure of anything when it comes to the genetics of reptiles. Reptiles have been around much longer than us so I'm sure there are many more surprises in store for us through captive breeding experiments. Most likely there are corns in the wild right now carrying genes for what we would consider new mutations. However, these genes were probably turned on or off at some point, millions of years ago for some survival advantage. I am not a fan of hybrids but whats to say that this wouldn't activate some interesting (or less desirable) gene/feature in corns?

There can be so much speculation about the purity of snake genetics. PLUS, there are probably more heterozygous corns in the wild carrying the genes for already existing traits that we trace back to a single animal. I think Rich stated something like, why would there have only been one wild cornsnake in the world heterozygous for 'Lavender'?

IMO, when it simply comes down to it, most people are interested in a certain look or appearance in corns, even if they say it must be a 'pure' corns. Even with testing, you'd never know if a snake carries 100% corn snake DNA vs. 99.7% corn DNA (and if so, what influence could that .3% other have on the genetic inheritance of future offspring?!)

I can only imagine what the people working with BALL PYTHON morphs will be going through in a few more years with all the different morphs, hybrids, and new names that have popped up faster than corner drug stores or fast food chains. At least us corn snake fanatics can trace lineage back to collectors here in the states.... Imagine what communication would be like back/forth to farms in Africa?!?!? LOL

One last thing....LOL....my very first corn over 10 years ago was sold to me (in the midwest) as a 'pure' okeetee by a trustworthy source/breeder that had never seen any mutations pop up in that line (or so I was told)....sure enough when I bred it, it was het for AMEL and I had an amel baby. Either it wasn't 'pure' or it was a new line of the same, existing amel...ya just never know!

 

[Serpwidgets]

Rich,

If someone is told (which I am assuming they would be) that those animals are the result of breeding a corn snake to a baird's rat snake, just why would those people think it would be a stupid idea to continue on and breed other cultivars of corn snakes into them?

Good point, and I thought the same thing right after I went to bed, hehe. Someone might do that for the same reason I'm doing this one.

"heck, I didn't have anything else to breed to her and didn't want to waste her this season."

Agreed, those and the "I have the following corns, which pairs should I breed?" (where's the smiley with me pointing a revolver at my head? )

-----

Darin,

Swap "pure corn" with "pure Okeetee" in all of your arguments and you find that this argument can be made against anyone from a "more purist" level than they are.

I think the simplest way to demonstrate that would be to ask, "should we feel obligated to avoid breeding anything that someone else might later pass off as a "pure Okeetee," which could then result in impurities being injected into their gene pool?"

If not, why?

-----

Also, I see this type of argument brought up a lot, but I have to respectfully disagree with it.

You'll have to settle for animals that are mostly corn, and hope that their other small drops of (whatever) blood, won't mess up all of your plans.

When picking something for a project, you're going to want an individual because of its overall phenotype. If there are "hybrid genes" in it, and they do affect the phenotype, then you are also selecting it because those "hybrid genes" are desireable to you.

If said hybrid genes don't affect the phenotype, then what's the difference? If they are subtle recessives that pop up later, how is that different from other subtle (and undesireable) recessives from within the "pure corn" population? IMO having some unnoticed amount of hybrid blood makes it no more likely to mess up a project than any "pure corn" specimen, because anything (of any species) can harbor undesireable genes which could pop up to mess up your project.

Ok, my fingers are tired from making all those "finger quotes." I'm starting to feel like Dr Evil. LOL

 

[Kat]

I'm sorry, Serp, I couldn't get any sharks with laserbeams. PETA won't allow it. All we have is sea bass. Angry sea bass.

-Kat

 

[Clint Boyer]

When picking something for a project, you're going to want

I think this is one of the big reasons these disagreements can get so heated. No one can tell you what "you're" going to want.

The dog ananolgy really doesn't apply. A dog is a dog, same species, same genes. Now if you were to compare the different mutations or selectively bred traits to the dog world, that would be different.

I'm not for or against hybrids, I feel that's a personal choice.

 

[Kat]

Slightly offsubject, I think it'd be interesting to use the current tolerances for genetic differences and find out whether different breeds of dogs constitute different species under that, or not. The results could be telling...

-Kat

 

[Rich Z]

Yeah, taxonomy is pretty screwy, in my opinion.

Look at all the subspecies of neotropical milksnakes where minor differences designate subspeciation. Yet just as wildly variable traits within the corn snake across it's entire range does not produce the same sort of hair splitting.

Then look at the Lampropeltis genus including the mexicana subgroup (gray bands, Durango Mntn, mex mex, thayeri) and that doesn't make any sense at all. At least not to me. The body structure looks nothing at all like all the rest of that genus.

Mankind just has this overwhelming need to cubbyhole everything. To put labels on them and place them in their "proper" drawer in a file cabinet somewhere.

To bad for us that Mother Nature could not care less about what we want.

 

[Serpwidgets]

I think this is one of the big reasons these disagreements can get so heated. No one can tell you what "you're" going to want.

I think you misunderstood me. I'm not trying to tell you what you want, I'm saying "you're going to want something." If you aren't selecting, then it's not really a selective breeding project, it's just "breeding." If you don't want something, then there's no goal. If there's no goal, then why does the outcome matter?

----

The dog ananolgy really doesn't apply. A dog is a dog, same species, same genes. Now if you were to compare the different mutations or selectively bred traits to the dog world, that would be different.

I don't agree with that. I don't know of any full grown cornsnake morphs that are 100 times the mass of another full grown cornsnake morph. One of the only clear parts of how to define a species is that they're supposed to be able to interbreed. At least some ratsnake "species" will do that, and, as I witnessed, willingly. Put a 2 pound toy poodle with one of those horse-sized dogs, and see if they'll interbreed.

One of the ways a new species will come about is when a species' range is split in half and the pools don't intermix any longer. When each side is subjected to differing selection pressures, their gene pools go different ways. At some arbitrary point someone decides that they suddenly "are" two separate species. This process started with dogs when man started domesticating them. Now we're doing that with snakes, too.

Anyway, I don't see how whether or not something is classified by taxonomy as same or different species is a basis to say whether or not they should breed or be bred or be allowed to breed. That is always the implication, because otherwise there's no point in arguing over their taxonomy.

I know you're not trying to make that argument, but many people do, and not one of them has ever been able to show the connection between "different species (as defined by man, which often changes and is argued over even by the experts, and irregardless of the fact that they interbreed anyway)" and "they shouldn't breed."

 

[Clint Boyer]

OK, I'll try this again,

When picking something for a project, you're going to want an individual because of its overall phenotype.

Now I don't know if that is just a generalized statement or not but you're still assuming that someone cares about phenotype for a project. Maybe someone elses idea of a project would seem very rediculous to you, like maybe breeding a corn and a bairds would seem rediculous to others.

You can go ahead and argue each piece of my statement but it will not change the fact that others ideas, even if they seem to have no goal to you, are valid in thier own right. Who says it has to be selective breeding to be valid?

I think you are mistaken about the dogs. If I'm correct, then if you were to look at a Chihauhau's gene's, they would be identical to a Great Danes. All dogs decend from wolves and their genes are all identical. They can not be differenciated from one an another. And yes, a five lb. dog can mate with a 250 lb. dog.

I agree that the taxonomy is purely a human viewpoint. I make no stand as to what should or should not be interbred. But I think I'm right about the other issues.

 

[Jimmy Johnson]

Question

This may be a stupid question but tough sh--.
Have there been genetic tests that prove emoryi rat snakes and corn snakes are truly geneticaly different?
I have looked and I can't find it.
Aren't they more or less listed as subspecific due to location?
Kind of like Obsoleta.
Although they are all obsoleta or the black rat snake haven't they been split into three groups due to location. Eastern, midland and western? but aren't they all taxonomicaly the same? If that's even a word.
help me out...
Jimmy

 

[Kat]

Clint, they're not all identical. Else, why do you not get spaniels from breeing danes? There is SOME genetic difference, but there's enough similarity that they can interbreed. What I'm betting on is that there is more genetic difference between a St. Bernard and a Toy Poodle than there is between Great Plains ratsnakes and Cornsnakes.

-Kat

 

[Clint Boyer]

Not identical in the sense that they produce identical beings (like cloning) but identical in the manner that a dog ear is a dog ear. My human ear has the exact human genetic make up as yours but I'm sure they don't look the same. A 4' 5" human has 100% human gens as does a 7'2" human. Variences within the genes are not the same as genes from different species. All dogs have the same genes but have been selectively bred to look different. They are the same species.

 

[Serpwidgets]

OK, I'll try this again,

Now I don't know if that is just a generalized statement or not but you're still assuming that someone cares about phenotype for a project.

I was responding to Darin's post, in which he was talking about, to paraphrase, "what if you wanted to breed a corn to something else to make a new hybrid because you thought the offspring would be great."

Cornsnakes are so varying in so many ways, like colors, attitudes, eating habits, size, etc. I would think it's a reasonable assumption that a breeder would be inclined to pick a cornsnake that they think would pass down more of those traits that would be so wonderful in that new hybrid.

That is, they wouldn't necessarily assume that all cornsnakes would throw the same offspring. And knowing that, they'd select by phenotype in the hopes it would have some type of positive effect in at least some of the offspring.

By phenotype I don't just mean "snow" or "ghost." I mean anything noticeable that is heritable, which in corns seems to include a preference for certain foods, bad attitudes, and a lot of other things. Heck, blood types and Parkinson's disease are phenotypes.

If you are not selecting for phenotype, the only other thing I can think of that you would ever select for would be hets. Nobody in their right mind would select a known non-heritable trait in order to try to breed that into a project.

Or are you talking about selecting for price?