Proposal regarding hybrids / pure corns

[airenlow]

Carpe, can we see pics of your corns?

 

[SnakeAround]

Excellent......but how do they know those corns being mapped are pure...........

Ehm... by looking up what a cornsnake is according to the classification system... e.g. looking at them and counting tail and head scales and such

E.g. they might end up mapping a snake that is a corn snake according to that definition but actually carries some genes which are inherited from an ancestor that has 0.05% different gene make up, which is not a pure corn genetically.

I wonder than: what if off spring inherites genes from what 'purists' see as a hybrid but actually those genes are exactly the same (because they share ancestors) as the matching ones the off spring inherites from the parent that is considered a pure corn? Are those exact copies still tainted because they came from a hybrid, even though they are exactly the same as its counterpart?

Classification and mapping just serves our needs to order stuff and make them understandable, studie gene related diseases and what ever but it is aritificial and just a snap shot of a situation that in the light of evolution only exists for a teeny tiny amount of time. I just don't understand how people stubbornly keep talking about pure corns (as in carrying no hybrid genes) whilst there is no way to be sure that a corn bred by purists is 100% corn for multiple reasons:

- there is no genetical make up defined for corns
- as long as one cannot trace back a corn to the first generation of corns, without a hybrid ancestor in its lines, a corn cannot be claimed to be pure according to the guide line: one hybrid ancestor, always a hybrid
- what is left is our own senses to help us identify a corn, yet on the other hand those people reject the simple guide line: if it acts, sheds, poops, eats, looks like a corn, and produces fertile off spring with another snake that is considered a corn, it is a corn.

Of course this also goes for corns bred by people whom do accept the guide line that starts with 'if it acts....'.

I suggest nobody ever speaks about pure corns or hybrids here anymore, only about 'snakes which I consider to be corns' and 'snakes which I don't consider to be corns because they don't match my standard for that' and 'known hybrid corns'

 

[Carpe Serpentis]

Ehm... by looking up what a cornsnake is according to the classification system... e.g. looking at them and counting tail and head scales and such

E.g. they might end up mapping a snake that is a corn snake according to that definition but actually carries some genes which are inherited from an ancestor that has 0.05% different gene make up, which is not a pure corn genetically.

I wonder than: what if off spring inherites genes from what 'purists' see as a hybrid but actually those genes are exactly the same (because they share ancestors) as the matching ones the off spring inherites from the parent that is considered a pure corn? Are those exact copies still tainted because they came from a hybrid, even though they are exactly the same as its counterpart?

Classification and mapping just serves our needs to order stuff and make them understandable, studie gene related diseases and what ever but it is aritificial and just a snap shot of a situation that in the light of evolution only exists for a teeny tiny amount of time. I just don't understand how people stubbornly keep talking about pure corns (as in carrying no hybrid genes) whilst there is no way to be sure that a corn bred by purists is 100% corn for multiple reasons:

- there is no genetical make up defined for corns
- as long as one cannot trace back a corn to the first generation of corns, without a hybrid ancestor in its lines, a corn cannot be claimed to be pure according to the guide line: one hybrid ancestor, always a hybrid
- what is left is our own senses to help us identify a corn, yet on the other hand those people reject the simple guide line: if it acts, sheds, poops, eats, looks like a corn, and produces fertile off spring with another snake that is considered a corn, it is a corn.

Of course this also goes for corns bred by people whom do accept the guide line that starts with 'if it acts....'.

I suggest nobody ever speaks about pure corns or hybrids here anymore, only about 'snakes which I consider to be corns' and 'snakes which I don't consider to be corns because they don't match my standard for that' and 'known hybrid corns'

Pure genius! You said in a few sentences what I have been trying to all along. Glad you came along and you posed some additional thoughts along the way that had great merit as well that I hadn't thought of myself.

 

[beautifullywild77]

"What dog do you have in this race?"

Just a small pekingese at the moment. I'd just really like an answer to the question of what is the standard and how do we work towards that standard in any real or meaningful way?
I must admit it is a frustrating me to some extent, but I am eager to learn.

"Do you wish to win over hearts and minds of the general corn-owning population or do you intend to breed corns and hybrids and sell them with paternity testing documents?"
I don't believe fertile hybrids are possible so they would be entirely impossible to breed thus proving their hybrid origin so no paternity test would be needed and easy enough for another to prove falsified if one were to make genuine hybrids.

My belief is that all members of a species can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

I am confused. You have been on this forum preaching about the wonders of hybrids. Even going as far as mudding up a for sale add claiming a snake looked like a hybrid. But you don't believe hybrids are fertile.

Hmmmm... I believe creams and rootbeers are fertile as well as the beautiful hybrids some members on here have produced between corns and milks. Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Carpe Serpentis]

I am confused. You have been on this forum preaching about the wonders of hybrids. Even going as far as mudding up a for sale add claiming a snake looked like a hybrid. But you don't believe hybrids are fertile.

Hmmmm... I believe creams and rootbeers are fertile as well as the beautiful hybrids some members on here have produced between corns and milks. Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

Let me explain it this way, I know what many others on this forum consider hybrids and while I don't agree that they are true hybrids, I still use the same vernacular so I can be understood and so others can understand me. For me, I believe if fertile offspring are produced then they are members of the same species as members that are not of the same species produce infertile offspring. I've covered the rest siting Berkeley in earlier posts multiple times so if your still confused theres not much I can do to help you. In fact, everything I've posted here is a rehash of earlier posts. The easiest thing of course would be to simply reference you to earlier posts in the thread rather than sounding like a broken record.

 

[jkgeorge]

Let me explain it this way, I know what many others on this forum consider hybrids and while I don't agree that they are true hybrids, I still use the same vernacular so I can be understood and so others can understand me. For me, I believe if fertile offspring are produced then they are members of the same species as members that are not of the same species produce infertile offspring. I've covered the rest siting Berkeley in earlier posts multiple times so if your still confused theres not much I can do to help you. In fact, everything I've posted here is a rehash of earlier posts. The easiest thing of course would be to simply reference you to earlier posts in the thread rather than sounding like a broken record.

This means that you think that corn snakes and california king snakes are the same species??

Makes me wish I hadn't wasted my money on that crazy field guide.

 

[Carpe Serpentis]

This means that you think that corn snakes and california king snakes are the same species??

Makes me wish I hadn't wasted my money on that crazy field guide.

Read the below and you will understand what I believe about species.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VADefiningSpecies.shtml

I'm tired of rewriting it as its been covered in previous posts if you simply look back and read.

By the way, thanks for the laugh.

 

[Carpe Serpentis]

The money spent on your guide did allow you to identify different localities of the same species of snake so money well spent if you ask me.

 

[BloodyBaroness]

This means that you think that corn snakes and california king snakes are the same species??

Makes me wish I hadn't wasted my money on that crazy field guide.

I know right? :roflmao:

 

[Carpe Serpentis]

What's right isn't always popular. What's popular isn't always right. Just because someone believes something you don't doesn't make them wrong. In the same manner that one can believe can believe in different gods and the person who believes in Allah can not prove the person that believes in Tunkashila wrong. Have you never seen one species or group that was once not included in the group relegated to a species or subspecies of another or vice versa?

 

[Carpe Serpentis]

Homo sapiens neanderthalensis versus Homo neanderthalensis would be just one example. Designations change and are artificial.

 

[BloodyBaroness]

Let me explain it this way, I know what many others on this forum consider hybrids and while I don't agree that they are true hybrids, I still use the same vernacular so I can be understood and so others can understand me. For me, I believe if fertile offspring are produced then they are members of the same species as members that are not of the same species produce infertile offspring.

So, following that line of thinking, explain to me why a king/corn hybrid is a corn snake?

I'll wait.

There is a reason Taxonomy was invented and accepted as the world wide standard of classification by the entire scientific community.

 

[jkgeorge]

What's right isn't always popular. What's popular isn't always right. Just because someone believes something you don't doesn't make them wrong. In the same manner that one can believe can believe in different gods and the person who believes in Allah can not prove the person that believes in Tunkashila wrong. Have you never seen one species or group that was once not included in the group relegated to a species or subspecies of another or vice versa?

From your link:
Defining a Species

A species is often defined as a group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature. In this sense, a species is the biggest gene pool possible under natural conditions.

Corn snakes and cali king snakes do not "actually or potentially interbreed in nature"

 

[BloodyBaroness]

From your link:
Defining a Species

A species is often defined as a group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature. In this sense, a species is the biggest gene pool possible under natural conditions.

Corn snakes and cali king snakes do not "actually or potentially interbreed in nature"

Very true.

It's not possible for Lampropeltis getula californiae and Elaphe guttata to ever met in the wild and breed.

 

[Carpe Serpentis]

From your link:
Defining a Species

A species is often defined as a group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature. In this sense, a species is the biggest gene pool possible under natural conditions.

Corn snakes and cali king snakes do not "actually or potentially interbreed in nature"

Corn snakes and cali king snakes can potentially interbreed in nature. Is it not plausible that a lone corn snake dropped in california could breed witha cali in nature?

 

[Carpe Serpentis]

In fact, the very fact that we can breed them together proves that it is possible. Suppose two opposite sex corn snakes are dropped in california. Suppose that copulation is about to happen and then a hawk swoops down and eats one and a king happens to approach also ready and eager from a similar mishap. It could happen. Is it likely to happen is another story.

 

[Carpe Serpentis]

Are we not also a part of nature?

 

[Carpe Serpentis]

Very true.

It's not possible for Lampropeltis getula californiae and Elaphe guttata to ever met in the wild and breed.

On what basis do you determine this?

 

[BloodyBaroness]

Corn snakes and cali king snakes can potentially interbreed in nature. Is it not plausible that a lone corn snake dropped in california could breed witha cali in nature?

No they can not. It is not plausible at all.

Same thing is true for Lampropeltis triangulum sinaloae and Elaphe guttata. They will never cross paths in nature.

The Berkeley study you linked proves your logic to be flawed.

 

[BloodyBaroness]

On what basis do you determine this?

Really? You honestly have to ask that?

Geographical population distribution maps. Simple straight forward and backed by years of field study by the intuitions that create them.