• 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.

Creamsicle Corn Snake - Elaphe guttata x emoryi

Clint Boyer said:
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.
Click to expand...
Clint, I think what you're trying to say is that they have the same genome. That is, they have all the same streets and house numbers, just different colored houses, whereas two different species would have a different number of streets laid out in a different manner, and different house numbers... on that I think you're right. But the fact that some ratsnakes produce entirely fertile offspring that breed true points to how similar (or identical?) their street maps are.

I still think that taxonomy is a way for us to see the big picture, a roadmap to evolutionary changes. As someone else mentioned, the current status of all species is simply a snapshot in time. Taxonomy allows us to see how those slow changes relate to each other. It shows how what we see as different species came from a common ancestor at some point long ago, and how far away common ancestors between two different species might be. And it shows how gene pools have appeared, changed, divided, merged, and disappeared through enormous periods of time.

IMHO domesticated animals that have been removed from wild gene pools really don't fit into that roadmap in the same way other species do. I'm not sure that having a classification for them is of any value to taxonomy, as long as we know who their common ancestors were. :) Although it is interesting to see how quickly a gene pool can change under extreme selection pressure.
 
Since it was my original analogy, please permit me to make a point about the "dog issue." It was never intended to be a direct correlation to the production of hybrids.

Instead, I merely was pointing out that it is not an uncommon thing for humans to select their pets based on arbitrarily set standards. Further, if one of those standards happens to be that a puppy has only Beagle ancestors (so far as Beagle acestry has been documented), it is then right for that puppy buyer to demand a "pure" beagle, and not one that had a Bassett Hound as a great-grandma. Also, it is the ethical and responsible thing for ALL dog breeders to do whatever they can to promote the availability of pure bred animals (whatever the breed may be) by not producing mixed breeds and trying to pass them off as pure breeds.

To this point, I think the analogy works. If a snake buyer has a set standard (whether it is buying a certain proven morph, buying a snake that is NOT het Amel, buying a "pure" cornsnake as far as can possibly be determined, or buying a "true" okeetee from the hunt club itself), that standard ought to be met, if a seller is going to represent his/her "product" as that which meets the standards in question.

All I am saying is that people looking for lab/shepherd mixed puppies are always going to find them so long as purebred labs and shepherds are around. But if the documented gene pools of either of those breeds were ever allowed to be totally "corrupted" with some other breed, the process could never be reversed, and lab/shepherd crosses would no longer be possible.

To be honest, I find the discussion extremely interesting, but I don't have a dog in this fight (pardon the pun). I quit breeding and selling creamsicles simply to avoid any questions from some to whom it matters a great deal. However, I do not see responsible breeders of hybrids as being any problem at all. Irresponsible breeders of all types send me through the roof, however!
 
Agreed, this is a fun thread. :)

Several things would have to change in order for the dog analogy to work:

1- Breeders would have to offer some kind of papers, and some kind of lineage info.

2- There would have to be some central organization which certifies and tracks all that stuff.

3- Buyers would have to be willing to pay a premium for that. At least enough to support the expenses involved.

4- Someone would have to start the ball rolling on that whole thing.
 
Clint, you're using circular reasoning. The only reason a human ear contains 100% human genes reguardless of the type of human is that the owner of said ear is defined as human.

Now, if you say that human is defined as being within a certain percentage of tolerance of similarity of genome, that is, if we define the set of humans as having no more than some percent X of genes different from an average taken of known humans, then we have a more precise definition of human. (Interesting to note that X is less than 1%. Our closest cousin, the chimpanzee, has more than 99% of his genes in common with ours. Morbid curiousity now causes me to wonder if a chimp/human hybrid is possible.)

From what I can tell, this percentage of genetic difference is what is being used in modern day to classify whether something's the same species or a different species, as opposed to appearance, locale, and behavior, which were the determining factors previously. Therefore, if we go by the modern definition of a species has X percent or more genetic differences from another species, we can measure whether St. Bernards and Pug dogs should really be classified as the same species.

What I'm theorizing is that the genetic difference between St. Bernards and Pug dogs is greater than the X percent difference that is being used to conclude that Great Plains rats and Corns are different species. This theory can be proven or disproven, and opinions about it are moot, because once the answer is known, there's something solid.

Without actually going in and comparing the genome, the only reason you can say that St. Bernards and Pugs are both members of the dog species, is because by the old definition, if it looks like a dog and acts like a dog it must be a dog. There is no quantitative measurement involved in that definition. It's the equivalent of saying, we define St. Bernards to be dogs, therefore a St. Bernard must be a dog. There's no quantitative reasoning to it. We just say, 'We defined it to be so, therefore it must be so'.

-Kat
 
My, my, my....what an interesting and informative thread. When I started this one I had no idea it would spawn this much debate and discussion and I have been absolutely pleased and thrilled to have so many experienced breeders take part in its discussion. There have been so many different points brought out...I won't even try to address how I was and am feeling about it other than the only thing that real stuck out in my mind was Rich's comment about the "pure" (I realize even that word was questioned and challenged) corn breeders being on an ever shrinking island while the world goes on around them breeding whatever is deemed marketable.

I for one am happy and thrilled that folks like rich feel strongly enough to show their commitment to the animals even though someday it may effect how they can make a dime. Honestly I really hope there is room enough in this Herp society for both groups of folks...those wanting to play with the endless possibilities and those who simply desire to shape the next true corn morph...

All in all I have found this so fascinating, albeit slightly beyond my own comprehension of genetics, genome, phenotype, etc...but I have tried to stay close to the topic and am thrilled every time I see someone still adding value to it...I have been on a variety of other boards/forums over the years with my other hobbies and I can honestly say you folks have handled a very heated topic with the utmost of dignity and respect for each other...a very nice thing to see and something you all should be proud of...this site is unbelievable in its membership and their quality.

Thanks everyone...

Lee (a.k.a. Slik)
 
Lee,
Now you know why this site is what I call home for my Cornsnake issues. I regard each and every one of the individuals here with a great amount of respect.

Kat,
I don't have the facts to back me up on this one. I base most of my arguement on a program I saw on the Discovery channel. It was based on the evolution of the dog from the wolf and stated that there was no genetic difference between the two.
I also remember hearing that the genetic makeup of the chimp was extremely similar to humans. Just think though, if they are so closely related and there are such huge physical differences (foot structure for instance). The just imagine how minutely (if at all) different dogs are from other breeds. The genes only told them to be bigger, smaller, shorter hair or shorter eared. Keep in mind now, I'm not bringing the emoryi/corn into the debate. I can easily see they are closely related if not the same.
You are correct about the proof, it os out there and our opinions are just that. My knowledge on the subject is limited. I really don't have the ability to say the taxonomists are right or wrong. You and Serp have added another view to the pot, Thanks!
 
I have to agree with Lee about the enjoyment of participating in, or sometimes just watching, the debates unfurl in various interesting threads here. It is really fun and informative to have in-depth, logical debates without people stooping to childish name calling as in many other forums that I have seen. Kudos to all of the mature participants who make that possible.
 
Well said Lee,

I totally agree and that is why I like this forum so much. Although there are definite sides and opinions on different issues (wouldn't the world be boring if everyone felt exactly the same about everything? :nope: ) people on these forums can argue their side without resorting to name calling and swearing like I have seen on other forums. I agree.....three thumbs up for all who participate in these forums.....I am glad to be a part of it.

Now, speaking of opinions. On the dog issue, actually many do believe all dogs came from one common ancestry and the current theorem is that the ancestry came from East Asian wolves similar to the dingo. They were brought to the Americas across the Beiring Straight. Some theories say that man selection of individuals with mutant genes that cropped up in their dog colonies were bred to produce the varying types of breeds we have today and others that this method was used but also the mixing in of other canid species like the wolves, jackles and coyote which all have the same number of chromosomes so are able to interbreed.
But like anything else, as it has been said here already, man likes to cubyhole nature and more than likely some other clues in the future will bring new light to this theory. The common theory, regardless of whether it be worlves, dingos or what have you is that all breeds of dogs have the same ancestry. But then, so does man, and look how diverse men are in color, size, looks, habits, etc. depending on the locale in which that 'pool' developed its civilization.

One thing I have a question on is, man can only reproduce with the human species due to chromosome count; dogs can breed with various in the canine species which does include the wolf, coyote, dingo, etc. and even though in nature they may not, in captivity it is different; horses can breed with zebra and jackasses although the offspring produced by jackasses is normally non sterile; my point is, if a species is so different from one another then they are not able to viably reproduce even if they procreate. So, if these 'different species' of snakes can produce viable, reproductive offspring, then are they really so different from one another as man would like to put them. I know in nature most, (and I say most because it does happen that one species will cross with another at times), of these would not interbreed, but I do know that if a male horse and a female zebra are in a coral together and she goes into estrus then they will willing breed with one another without force of human intervention. I do realize that some of these snake species need to be 'tricked' into breeding, but if nature had not intended the possiblilty of breeding, would they not be different also in chromosomes and not be able to reproduce? So does that not mean that somewhere in the genetic past - way, way past - of these species of snakes, that they are possibly related and developed their differences due to different forces of nature because of living conditions? I may be on the wrong track here and someone can correct this thought if it is wrong.

I pose all this as trying to look at both sides of the issue, which I find a very interesting topic. I think there has been good points brought up on both sides.
 
Another point to argue, which is what I was trying to get at, was that humans have done for dogs what nature has done for other species and populations.

For example, say there's a school of fish living in a stream. Part of this stream passes through an underground cave. Now, suddenly an earthquake happens, trapping part of the fish population in the cave, and part of it outside the cave. After enough time has passed, the fish in the cave have adapted to life with no light. The fish outside the cave have adapted to not having to swim through a cave (whatever that may entail). Now, if we were to take a look at these two populations of fish, we might be tempted to call them different species, as they've had different selection pressure. There will be a point in time that these two populations will qualify as separate species based on whatever our definition is. Yes, they started as the same species. But they don't have to STAY the same species, and the more selection pressure put on the populations, the faster they'll differentiate.

Humans have done the same thing with dogs, albeit artificially. They took a group of wolves, divided them up into smaller groups, and started selecting each group for different things. Dachshunds (I hope I spelled that right) were selected for being short and long of body for hunting badgers in burrows. Bloodhounds were selected for being the best at following scent trails. At some point, human selection of dog breeds will approach and cross the line we've drawn as the definition of what counts as separate species.

Yeah, you can try to breed a great dane and a cocker spaniel, but more than likely you'll have to resort to artificial insemination. And the daddy better be the spaniel, because it's likely that the puppies will have sizes somewhere in between the two parents. Trying to breed two dog breeds that are sufficiently different is like trying to breed two species of snakes that are sufficiently different. Not impossible, but there are things you need to watch out for, and there are compatability issues.

-Kat
 
Species?

One problem with this whole thing is obviously that no one can decide on what a species really is. Some argue that there cannot be a definition of species anyway, due to the incredibly variable differences between specific genes.
Scientists have tried to say a species is a reproductively isolated population. That's clearly a non-working definition.
As a consequence, biologists working with, say, giant pandas, won't agree with a biologist working with capenter ants or spitting cobras. Some animals tend to fit the description much better than others.
 
WOW

Holy cow, this thread is nuts. I love this place. I personaly don't think it matters. I breed cal kings to corns just because it is always like christmas when the hatching begins. I have seen crazy offspring from these guys and I love them. I always tell me pet store buyers what they are and educate them on caring for them. I know they label them correctly and sell them for what they are. Now, if the customers still doesnt understand it, I can't help it. I believe that most of you agree that anything selectively bred is not natural to some extent and the "jungles" I produce are just modified a little more. I used to work for the factory motorcyle race teams (road racing a.k.a. crotch rockets) and I will tell you this.... anything that we raced labeled "stock" or pure to you guys was surely not. I cant go into detail as I would surely be sued by them, but I can assure you everything that people enjoy gets modified to some extent. I also breed pitbulls and stafforshire bull terriers. Same dog for all intents and purposes but bred different for different traits. Todays pitbulls are bigger and heavier skeletoned. Staffordshire bull terriers are quite a bit more terrier( my female pit weighs 75 lbs. and my female terrier weighs 25 lbs. BUT when people see the staffy they say what a cute puppy I have.) Both pairs are called blue and the only difference is size. Now I wouldnt breed them together just for the monetary loss for the akc papers, but if say Rich said he would buy all of them for X amount of dollars I would. It's as simple as giving someone something they want. My customers love having something different as a pet and I love making a couple of bucks giving them what they want.

By the way thanks to everyone reading my novels. lol :)
 
My eyes! I can 't believe what I am reading!

I believe that most of you agree that anything selectively bred is not natural to some extent and the "jungles" I produce are just modified a little more.
Click to expand...

BLASPHEMER! Take you evil deeds elsewhere! Hybrids are the Debil's handiwork!

(Am I being melodramatic enough??) :D


Oh yeah, welcome to the forum
 
Melodramatic

Cav,
Thats crazy funny and thanks for the welcome. It could be the Devil's handiwork but I love it anyway.
 
Darin Chappell said:
I look at it like this:

Lots of folks like milk.
Lots of folks like water.
A few folks like milk in their water.
More folks want their water free from any milk at all, even if they like milk.

However, once the milk has been introduced into the water, no matter how many times it is diluted, that water will never be "pure" again.

Keep your glasses separate, and you'll never have to question what you're drinking (assuming you ever knew in the first place!)

:D
Click to expand...

Although , how many people like " milk in their water " ??

:)
 
On a serious note , couldn't find the edit option, what are Creamsicle's temperament like compared to the usual corn snakes ?
My mate has a rat snake hatchling and I noticed that it was certainly more feisty than my virn hatchlings . It was also much livlier snd spent more time off the ground .
 
Im to lazy to read the whole thread so here is my opinion. In the long run I think hybrids could be a very bad idea. But what its worth I love creamsicles.
 
Its also a thread that was ressurected from the dead from 6 yrs ago..

Regards.. Tim of T and J
 
I actually only did what so many of you keep telling others to do ..... "USE THE SEARCH OPTION !!! "

Not sure if you where actually having a "dig" at me for unearthing this old thread but either way , there's no point in people continuing to suggest using the SEARCH option if when somebody uses it they get either flamed or ignored . I only revamped it to ask on the temperament of Creamsicles .

If there were no underlying tones in your post then I apologise , neither of you made any attenpt to explain Creamsicle's temperament , though .
 
Zincubus said:
On a serious note , couldn't find the edit option, what are Creamsicle's temperament like compared to the usual corn snakes ?
My mate has a rat snake hatchling and I noticed that it was certainly more feisty than my virn hatchlings . It was also much livlier snd spent more time off the ground .
Click to expand...


The temperament of creamsicles is like that of corns...most are nice but you do run across the occasional witch.

And the edit button can be obtained by becoming a Contributing member. Your only other option in that department is to proofread before clicking that "Submit Reply" button.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top