|
Right. I'm a bit on the fence - I think some closely related (species-wise, size-wise AND geographically speaking, where it might occur naturally anyway) such as Carpondros and some kingsnakes aren't so bad in my mind.
But such extreme (burmxball) hybridization attempts risk so many problems - the gamble of WHICH offspring will carry which characteristics - how big will those snakes get? Some might only get to be 5 ft long, some the full burm size, and everything inbetween. Some could be fairly even mixes so it would be an unmistakable hybrid just by looking at it, but others could look so much like one parent that there would be the chance of them be bred as normals at some point. What if those "burm" genes surface at some point in the future, and some person who thinks they're buying a CB ball python get instead a 10ft "hidden" hybrid?
It's not really like dog breeds at all - dog breeds are really like human races. People who are "line bred" so to speak tend to wind up sharing certain traits, like facial features, height (or lack thereof), and skintone. Hybridization is a risky experiment, and not the same as breeding to achieve a pastel colored animal. Look at the strange things that happen with "ligers" and "tigons" - depending on if a lion is father or mother, a lion x tiger cross can lack a limiting growth hormone and get MUCH larger than either a normal tiger or lion can grow. What if something like this happens with these other hybridizations?
I think BCC x BCI crosses are ok, as long as it's well documented, since these animals' territories can overlap. But I also think attempts must always be made to keep a "pure stock" and hybridization does clould that ability with the presence of unscrupulous breeders and the risk of loss of heritage information, which happens to many animals as they change owners.
|