Isn't that a little hypocritical? If you don't care about them being pure cornsnake, why do you care if they have genes from outside of the NA ratsnake-complex? In my eyes, either you care it is pure or you don't.
What is the difference betyween a cornsnake hybrid qith 10% Cal-King in it (for example) and one with 20% obsoleta? Both are hybrids. What is the difference between one and the other if the hybrid thing doesn't bother you?
Well, my logic on it was behind creating a
Pantherophis-based domesticated snake, with the idea that there might well be further domesticated hybrids specified (for example, leopard geckos are almost certainly integrade/hybrids between several
Eublepharis macularius subspecies AND a couple of other species of Eublepharis - I'd support calling all current captives
Eublepharis domesticus and only calling wild-origin or directly traceable animals with the appropriate species name).
For example, I own a hybrid animal whose dam is a corn snake and whose sire is an
Elaphe climacophora (Japanese Ratsnake). I wouldn't call THIS one a "
Pantherophis domesticus = North American Ratsnake" because:
1. He's not all
Pantherophis
2. He's not all North American.
I'd call him exactly what I call him now - a Hybrid Ratsnake.
A cross between
Pantherophis obsoletus rossalini and
Pantherophis guttatus is still all
Pantherophis-genus (or
Elaphe if you prefer that) - but a cross between a
Lampropeltis getulus californiae and a
Pantherophis guttattus isn't all
Pantherophis or indeed entirely composed of animal that is commonly called a "ratsnake".
I don't like any hybrids, but I now I've been in the minority since people started collecting snakes like stamps instead of keeping them to admire functioning portions of the ecosystem. I just can't see why you are saying hybrids are OK....as long as they are just limited to a mix of certain species. I'd love your explanation, though.
I'm actually not saying that hybrids are OK or not OK... I'm just saying we have to accept that the animals we currently CALL corns in captivity might be less
Pantherophis guttattus than we thought... and if we're concerned about having pure animals, maybe declaring the animals we've got in captivity that aren't traced to locality wildcaughts as "potential hybrids" and thus a new domesticated species might make it easier to winnow the original wild caught Red Rat Snakes from the "Creamsicle Lavender Jungle TurboMegaCorns".
You get down to it, I don't LIKE
cryptic hybrids - especially when they have potential negative consequences like king/corn crosses or fertility issues (I'm sure I remember something about gopher/corn crosses having one gender infertile in the first generation) - but I rather do like hybrids that LOOK like hybrids. Il Palazzo, my Hybrid Rat, looks like a hybrid. He doesn't look like he's all corn; he doesn't look like he's all Japanese ratsnake. He's a curiosity and I can't wait to see what he looks like as an adult. Shame we'll never find out whether he IS fertile - I wouldn't breed him except to another hybrid like him, since I wouldn't want to be producing animals that look too much like one or the other parent species.
Really - I'm not arguing with your proposition - I'm asking for explanation on why you support the premise. I believe that is a fair question.
Fair enough
Is there evidence to show that other ratsnakes interbreed as readily with
Pituophis as
Pantherophis guttattus does? I must admit it's not something I'd looked into because I don't want to own, nor do I have any interest in the creation of,
Pituophis/Pantherophis crosses.
Ever heard of Felis Domesticus?
Nope, 'cos there's no such thing
The domestic cat is
Felis silvestris catus. And ALL fully domesticated cats were the offspring of
Felis silvestris silvestris and/or
Felis silvestris lybica.
Now... Bengals, Chausies, Savannahs and some of the other designer hybrids... well, they're still classified as domestic cats if you look at the British Dangerous Wild Animals listings. Yes, they've got a parent, grandparent or great-grandparent that wasn't a domestic cat... but for legal reasons they're still considered Felis silvestris catus. Bengals have Asian Leopard Cat heritage; Chausies have African Jungle Cat heritage and Savannahs have African Serval heritage.
It was said that domestic house cats should be put under a single species name, and it was so. Let's use an example. I'm looking for a cat. I'll use my cat Bachi as an example. I want to buy my cat Bachi, so I put up a wanted ad. What do I say? She was, at some point a single species. In that time, I could have said "Wanted: Felis Leopardis (not real species) and there you go, six days later someone would answer my ad and I would have a nice little kitten. But now, they are all the same species. So now I say, "Wanted: Black spotted cat, speckled brown background with black stripe along tail and back, long wiskers, and white belly." There is no longer any difference.
There wasn't a difference between them anyway - because cat colours are coat-based paint jobs applied
in place of the wild-type colours on the same species (akin to lavender or amel on a cornsnake) and are not based on species heritage. Crossing an Emoryi ratsnake into a cornsnake isn't just a paintjob change - it's akin to crossing a domestic cat to a Scottish wildcat.
I think that the more specific we can get, the better. Genuses are there for a reason, so there is no point in having only one species for one genus. Hybrids should be put under a mixed category, such as Pantherophis Guttata-Emoryi, so how does that sound?
The sound you are hearing is the point I was making going over your head.
I am proposing that we DO create a "mixed category" -
Pantherophis familiaris - to describe hybrids and possible hybrids of the
Pantherophis complex of species in captivity, with the idea that any animal whose heritage cannot be traced to wild-caught animals who are all the same species, will be arbitrarily assigned to this new domestic species. The wild animals will still be
Pantherophis guttattus or
emoryi or
obsoleta; animals that you go out and catch that are
Pantherophis guttattus will stay
Pantherophis guttattus... but if you cross one to a
Pantherophis familiaris, then its offspring are
P. familiaris!
But people are not. We no longer list them as ratsnakes, so my mentality is not that people are breeding ratsnakes, as much as they are breeding corns.
Maybe the wildcaught ones need to be called Red Ratsnakes again - and the domestic species is a "corn snake" and may contain other
Pantherophis species.
Sure, colors are dandy, but you have to notice something. The species have already changed. It's not like they all look the same. I see differences between Emoryi's and Corns. They all have different properties, so they need to be in different species.
One of the definitions of species used to be that they could not interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Well, my boy Il Palazzo shows that not only can a corn breed with another North American ratsnake (or pine snake, or gopher, or king) but with a species from another continent entirely.
I'm not wholly convinced it's impossible to breed a cornsnake to a daffodil and get fertile offspring :crazy02: based on what else you can put them to and get live babies out of.
So, if that's the case - if a corn can be bred to many of the North American species - and even some of the Asian ratsnake species - does that mean they're all congeneric?
The bottom line...as KJUN pointed out...it takes many, many years of informed observation to identify hybrids vs. non-hybrids. Some people have an eye, some people don't. When in doubt, I believe that you should be as honest as possible, and identify your doubts to potential buyers.
That's my plan. I don't have any "corns" that I bought as such that set the warning bells ringing - but I have seen a fair few animals in general that do make me wonder "How far back in the woodpile is the
obsoleta I'm seeing?"