Inter-species breeding

I have spoken to two scientists a biologista and a herpetologist about this, and to a developmental psychologist who deals heavily in genetic theopries. and all agree that if the new hybrids bred true and had a chromosione count that was different thatn either of the two snakes that crossed in the first place, then it would indeed be a new species.

When speaking to these individuals did you specify that this was a cross occuring in a controlled captive setting? The point being, any animal engineered outside of the wild will simply never receive unique taxonomic classification, therefore a man made hybrid cannot become a true species. If it could, as I mentioned before, every person keeping snakes would hold the possibility of adding and naming new species.

On the issue of the chromosome counts, I see where they are coming from, but you cannot automatically designate new species based solely on the offspring having a different number.
To illustrate, humans have 46 chromosomes but can produce children with a different number. Downs syndrome for instance is the result of a single additional chromosome, these children are not speciated.

The breeding true part is the hard part as most crosses wind up being mules or sterile.

While this may be true outside the reptile realm, all known crosses of snakes have resulted in fertile offspring capable of breeding with each other and both parent species. This includes the intergeneric cross of corns and kings.
Both Elaphe and Lampropeltis have 36 chromosomes. This number is of course based on the counts that have been done. I would feel certain that every species in each genus has not been subjected to a chromosome count.
This likely contributes to the success of this cross. However, even with like chromosome counts, I can't see them being combined taxonomically. In fact the Elaphe genus is being further broken up.

In an INDUSTRY that is forever hungy for something...ANYTHING new, HYBRIDS often represent a "Last-Ditch" effort for a failed breeder to get his name widely known and make some financial return on his snakes. Sadly, these hybrids are often products of breeders who have NEVER bred anything else, and their first attempt and captive propagation is this abomination. Sad.


Part of it is the breeders fault, these animals are not VEHICLES for us to"Become" somebody, they are sentient beings. I am not inferring that we bestow them with all the rights that humans possess, but to hold them in captivity and puposefully breed them with another snake that would NEVER intergrade with them in the wild, that is a crime in my book.


Part of the fault lies in the "BUYING public". They just want something "PRETTY" The people are totally DETACHED from the natural biome that these animals eminate from. Ask the average buyer of a Dumerills boa where on the map his snake comes from, and I BET you that a good healthy percentage of them couldnt tell you. We have separated these animals from their enviornment, as if they were some separate entity, alone, when they are part of a BIGGER makeup, a BIGGER picture. The """"BUYING"" public thats looking for a *Pretty snake* doesnt CARE where it came from, and trying to get these people to understand, appreciate and fight for enviornmental issues that can help preserve that habitat is an all but mute point. "I got my snake, its pretty,I dont care where it came from"

Man made hybrids have no niche in nature. Often the snakes used do not have the same psyiological nor mental or behavioral behaviours. Arboreal species have been crossed with species that are not related that spend the vast majority of their time on the ground. We create abberrations, pat ourselves on the back for makeing something pretty, then sell them to a public that either has never been taught the beauty of a habitat and the snakes place in it, or doesnt care.


I bought Madagascar Ground Boas a year back. I delved into books and periodicals galore to try to find info on them. I read books on Madagascar, fascinated withthe island and its rich fauna. I lamented when I read about the destruction of habitat that is occuring their daily. And I vowed to one day try and produce more of these snakes. But that opened the door to Madagascars wildlife for me, which was hard to shut. I bought a few more Madagascan reptiles(Not snakes) that were c/b)

And you know what?

Some GUY emailed me to let me know that he had Madagascar Ground boa/Colombian boa crosses! And would I be interested in any!!



***THIS** is what I am talking about. BREEDERS without a shred of decency producing snakes that will potentially, at least in the short term..SELL FOR THEM. Money...money....money
And BRAGGING Rights....and glossy PICS.


Sorry but it disgusts me. And more are produced every day, by brand name breeders in this industry. Money....something new......money.....money.......money....bragging rights.....money.


And it has become commonplace to see threads on kingsnake, entire threads, just on new hybrids. And everyone is sooo enthusiastic about it. To bad its not a rare snake..like a angolan python, or a snake with a spotty reproductive history....like
a Boelens python. No.....that would be to COMMONPLACE.
Or perhaps just to hard, and take to long.
After all....we want money and fame SOON dont we.


Hybrids?

They just plain suck.


sincerely,

Fred Albury
Aztec Reptiles

Fred, Seaumus, et al..

Do you think it would be possible or more importantly a situation where it would be benefitial to have hybrids that were not developed out of greed?

I understand exactly where you are coming from Fred.
It's crosses like the one you mention that are the worst form of this unfortunate trend.

To take a Madagascan ground boa, a snake not that common in captivity, and squandering the breeding effort crossing it with a colombian boa is a complete waste. Here we have a species that has a small captive population with poor chances of increasing that number by any real margin and instead of working to produce the species, and try to diversify the bloodlines as best we can with what we have, it is uselessly hybridized.

We see the same thing with hog island boas. These snakes being what is believed to be a naturally occuring hypomelanistic species is ripe for crossing into true red tails. I have already seen the cross with surinames available this month with the eye grabbing ad title of "Hypo suriname".
It is quite possible from what I have read that the hog island may be extinct in the wild. This means what we have is all we will have. To waste these bloodlines by polluting them through hybridization is unconscionable. Yet for the sake of producing another "pretty snake" it is done without thought by many.
It's these short term goals fed by greed and desire for recognition that are eating away at our hobby.

This is one area that causes me to dread what we will have 20 years from now. Habitat destruction at its current rate is going to leave many species with captivity as their only hope for survival. If that is not protected and respected, it will be lost. The seeds are being sown now, what will we harvest a decade down the road?

I have a question for everyone that has responded to this thread so far:

Is this the definition of hybrid that you are all going by:

1 : an offspring of two animals or plants of different races, breeds, varieties, species, or genera (from Miriam Webster Dictionary)

This is the definition of hybrid as I have been using it to describe all of the inter-species, inter-subspecies inter-genera, inter-breed crosses I have been talking about. Is this basically the same one all of you are using, or is there some other definition of hybrid that I have been missing?

The reason I am asking is because I first heard from someone who said he is against crosses but has a breed of dog that has been obtained through selective breeding (yes hybrids are often created by breeding animals of the same species albeit with different traits to select the desired trait), and another person or two complained pretty strongly about breeders selling hybrids and actually making money off of it, and someone also said, and I quote:

"Hybrids?
They just plain suck."

Well pardon me, but I also recently visited a web site, wherein one of you guys is pictured, yes I do mean you Fred, who complains that hybrids are in essence terrible, and who made that hybrids suck statement. Guess what I saw on the website. I saw you, one of the main in opposition to hybrids, holding a hybrid snake (unless I am terribly mistaken). That snake was listed as belonging to you in the photo caption. Go figure, what is up with that? You guys are giving me an argument against hybrids but yet you guys are keeping hybrids???????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????

I understand that Clay thinks the particular breed of dog in question was hybridized about 10,000 (or 20,000) years ago, but that is quite incorrect from what I understand. Go onto a good dog website or get a good book about the breed to find out when it was first selected for through selective breeding. The domestic dog was bred way back when, but not all the individual breeds were hybridized back then. I think you will find the breed (hybrid) you have does not go back more at most than a few hundred years, and has been further changed through selective breeding in much more recent years. Yes a dog breed is a hybrid that was produced through selective breeding. As for the hybrid snake that Fred was proudly displaying, a salmon hypo whatever, in that website photo, well I kind of doubt that a salmon hypo whatever it was (or the leucistic pine that was also pictured) goes back more than 20 or 30 years, at most, in the history of selective breeding of captive snakes.

Of course maybe you guys only mean hybrids are bad when it is other people who want to breed or keep them but I truly doubt that you guys are like this. More likely, you only mean inter-species, or inter-genera crosses. If that is what you think, then please say so, don't blanket all hybrids as bad when you keep em yourselves (and Clay you may have done that already - I just cannot find it right now). And by the way, I hope neither of you means inter-grades (inter-subspecies crosses) as these occur quite often in nature where ranges cross.

As clarification for my stand: I do understand that some hybrids are kind of ridiculous to produce such as the boa crosses that someone wrote about. Why anyone would try to breed an endangered species with a Colombian Boa is beyond me except if it was done for money or just to see if it could be done. I do agree that such should not happen, at least until that is, there are lots more of the endangered species around because of good breeding programs that brought it back. But look at this another way. Is there a species of recently extinct snake out there, that is close to another species genetically? Is there viable genetic material left over from that extinct species in a museum freezer somewhere? Could that genetic material be combined with a living snake from the closely related species and produce viable young. Could the process of selectively breeding the offspring with one another eventually produce a snake that is 99.9 percent the extinct species. Would that snake be something of value????? Boy I wonder if that would work with birds – I have always wanted to see a flock of passenger pigeons or a bunch of Dodos and yes I would settle for a 99 percent passenger pigeon or Dodo. (Yeah I know where I can find a real dodo right now but looking in the mirror is just not the same thing as what I mean - so please don't go there {LOL}). Does this sound like science fiction - because scientists are sure hoping to be able to do this with Mastodon remains (or was it Mammoth remains) and an elephant - and they are quite serious about it. Hybridization, I see scientific value for it, not only hobby value, although I can accept both. Just to let you know - I am kind of a purist as far as my own collection goes - egads I even breed less than desirable species such as Garter NSakes, Smooth Green Snakes, and Gopher Snakes (no hybrids yet).

Best regards,
Glenn B

Dear Glen,

Perhaps you need to take a GOODlook in the mirror, and use windex to clarify what you see. Let me explain:

The Salmon Hypo boas you have no doubt seen on my outdated webshots account were purchased from Rich Ihle, a gentleman that I have come to know as a fellow vendor at MANY of the same shows on the west coast. I bought them because they were pretty, popular and truly did not knowthey were hybrids when I got them. I found out several years later and summarily GOT RID OF THEM. I no longer have them , though the pics sit on a webshots account I barely use anymore....


Let me clarify:

HYBRIDS..the result of breeding two diffrent types of snakes together that would NEVER intergrade in the wild is wrong.
They have no natural history...
They ave no natural niche.....
They have two differentsets of behaviour based on their TWO 2)
different sets of parents.

Often people breed snakes together that are bothhe same type(I.e both boa constrictors) but from diffrent locales, locales that often dont even often overlap. Again....a limited amount of these snakes come in, and instead of at least TRYING to breed one locale of boa to another from the same locale.

Glen....you look for INCONSISTENCIES in peoples observations, testimonials or beliefs. This makes you no better than the trolls that inhabit kingsnake.com and are allowed to stay there seemingly forever.

Bottem line:I dont breed Hybrids,I never will,I would rather have a collection of single sex snakes that are of diffrent species, jsu as pets.


Also....breeding diffrent types of dogs together isnt hybridization, they are ALL the same animal, just diffrent morphs of the SAME snake.


Thats all,

Fred Albury

I employ a definition of hybrid as follows:

Any breeding of two animals of different taxonomic classification. Be it different genera, species, or sub-species. The only exception to this would be where the ranges of two individuals of different sub-species overlap, these would be termed intergrades.
An an illustration, L. g. californiae X L. g. splendida would be considered an intergrade by my definition, whereas L. g. californiae x L. g. getula would be considered a hybrid. Inter-subspecies crosses are a bit of a gray area with differing opinions, I consider the possibility of natural intergradation when applying the term. Others however, label all inter-subspecies crosses as intergrades.

The reason I am asking is because I first heard from someone who said he is against crosses but has a breed of dog that has been obtained through selective breeding (yes hybrids are often created by breeding animals of the same species albeit with different traits to select the desired trait),

I continue to regret ever bringing up the issue of dogs to illustrate a point, but once more, hybrids cannot be derived by the crossing of two animals of the same species, or taxonomic classification.
Despite the definition given in Webster's, inter-breed crosses are not hybrids. Some may apply the term to such offspring, but that does not make it accurate.

I understand that Clay thinks the particular breed of dog in question was hybridized about 10,000 (or 20,000) years ago, but that is quite incorrect from what I understand. Go onto a good dog website or get a good book about the breed to find out when it was first selected for through selective breeding. The domestic dog was bred way back when, but not all the individual breeds were hybridized back then.......................Yes a dog breed is a hybrid that was produced through selective breeding.

Unless the breed in question was developed using canines of a different species, then my statement was completely correct. Selective breeding within the confines of a species has absolutely nothing to do with hybridization, nor are hybrids produced by such breedings. Remember my earlier example of cornsnake morphs? So, no, a dog breed is NOT a hybrid produced by selective breeding.
Breeding a wolf to a domestic dog results in a hybrid, the two have different taxonomic classifications. Breeding a poodle to a pit bull does not result in a hybrid, those two are taxonomically the same animal.
"Breeds" are nothing more than a man made system of names to keep track of variations of an animal he has created outside of nature. The term cannot be crossed over into a taxonomic setting, because taxonomy does not recognize breeds, only genera, species etc. The same is true of domestic horses, cows, and pigs.
I hope this clarifies the dog breed question and the issue can be put to rest. If not I'll try to word it differently.

More likely, you only mean inter-species, or inter-genera crosses. If that is what you think, then please say so, don't blanket all hybrids as bad when you keep em yourselves (and Clay you may have done that already - I just cannot find it right now).

I do blanket all hybrids as bad, using the definition of hybrid I outlined above. And no, I do not keep hybrids, so I have not done that already. Just to reassert the statement, my dog is not a hybrid.

I do see where you are going with the "salvage the extinct" strategy. However in reality, this method with most species will be doomed to failure as a result of inbreeding. Unless the pricess was repeated with many original animals, the needed selective breeding to bring out the desired genetics will cripple the efforts for lack of fresh blood.
They can and most likely will bring about some form of mastadon hybrid, but the chances of actually creating a self sustaining breeding group of these immense animals is slim.
With today's cloning technology, this will be a much more feasible method of regaining lost species once it is perfected, assuming enough individual genetic material is available to create an initially diverse group.

The salmon boas are a perfect example of part of what I am saying. I readily admit to not putting forth much effort to keep my finger on the pulse of the lastest morph trends with many species, and until this thread I did not know salmon boas were hybrids.
This is a common occurance now that hybrids are given catchy names. Without realizing the history of the salmon boa I could have easily added some of these to my collection and unintentionally wasted an entire year's boa work or more by producing hybrids.
How many more people are equally underinformed in this area with this and other commonly produced mutts. I have seen albino alterna offered for sale as such with no further information. I know that there has not yet been an albino alterna discovered, and that these snakes are the result of hybridization, but how many other people who think these are pretty snakes do not realize that?
The damage resulting from the practice of hybridization has not even begun to be displayed yet.

Clay and Fred,

Clay,

I just wanted to say thanks for the explanation of your point. I am not trying to belittle you in any way by bringing up the dog thing, but am trying to use what I believe is a good example of hybridization. I think you already know this judging by the quality of your reply. By the way, as far as I am aware - hybridization does indeed include crosses of the same species with different traits to produce a selected trait. I understand that we seem to disagree with each other on this point; however your explaining what you mean by hybrid does make your stand much easier for me to understand even if I disagree with parts of it.

As for the definition of hybrid, Miriam/Webster may be correct. I did some checking about hybrids on the web and in a dictionary. I found a rather interesting link on the web, one that goes to the source so to speak. Here is a link to a paper written by the guy who started it all: EXPERIMENTS IN PLANT HYBRIDIZATION (yes it was written in the 1860s by Mendel himself)

I will admit I have not read it in its entirety, but read just enough to see that a hybrid was apparently considered (by Mendel) to be the resultant offspring of a mating between two members of the same species (among other types of crosses that would also be included such as inter-species mating) which had different characteristics, such as subspecies and such as - no I won't go there again because I'll only wind up in the doghouse (LOL)..


Fred,

I am not trolling at all. I posted a question and my opinions. Is that trolling simply because I asked a question or because my opinion differs from yours? No it is not. Is it trolling because I pointed out an apparent inconsistency - no again! Pointing out an inconsistency, would be the responsible thing, in my opinion, to do if one is aware of it. Should I accept someone else’s argument when it seems based upon inconsistency? I think not! You explained in your later post that you had a change of mind about hybrids, and to me that would have been sufficient to wipe out any inconsistency that had been apparent beforehand. I guess you believed it was not enough and that name calling and being disrespectful was called for. That is too bad, it was a better thread without such being introduced.

You seemed not to like out the fact that I pointed out an apparent inconsistency regarding your stand. I pointed out what seemed inconsistent to me, but then asked that you respond to it to explain yourself. That is not trolling, in my opinion, but that is keeping up a good and intelligent correspondence. Clay responded to me with answers and opinions of his own as did others including yourself. While giving your answer, you however, give it a different twist than did Clay. He was quite respectful. You get nasty, then have the nerve to tell me to look in the mirror and that I am trolling when I point out what seemed to be the inconsistency! Oh come now. I was not looking for inconsistencies when I visited that photo website, wherein I found the picture of you holding a hybrid. I did however have some interest in finding out more about with whom I was communicating. Since I did not see a web site listed for you in your profile, I typed your name into my browser and there was the address for the aforementioned site. I was pretty surprised in an impressed sort of way that I found a site about you in the manner in which I did. Once there I looked at the pics. If I happened to see a glaring inconsistency from what you said to how you were pictured, well don't you think that such was germane to this conversation - I do! That is why I asked you about it in my follow up post to your original post in this thread. I was not doing it to troll. I always thought, among other things, it was the trolls who posted the inconsistencies to sucker other guys into an argument. In other words that it did not matter to them what they said as far as being consistent with their own viewpoints so long as they could fan the flames of an argument. I guess even our definition of troll differs. No I am not implying you are a troll because you apparently posted what I had believed to be an inconsistency. I do believe that you have the right to change your mind. I do think though, that your initial answer to my posting was uncalled for in that you refer to me as trolling and no better than someone else which was obviously meant in a derogatory manner.

I do know one thing, when I look in the mirror, I may see some of the nine year old who used to be me, but I do not see a troll nor do I see a hypocrite! When I read your original post in this thread, and then saw those pictures of you with the hybrid, I could have easily imagined you to be either - BUT that is not what I did. Instead I asked you to explain yourself, and even pointed out that I did not think you the type of guy to believe it was ok for you to keep em but not for anyone else to keep em. Sure I change my mind about things, just as you are free to do the same. I wonder though, how do you think I was supposed to know that these shots were old as you now say, or for that matter that you had changed your ideas on the subject. The only way I would know is if you or someone else told me. You decided to tell me, but at the same time decided to become, in my opinion, very disrespectful. Instead of giving a respectful answer when I remained respectful albeit quite skeptical (and yes I can be respectful while remaining skeptical), you say that I am no better than the trolls at kingsnake.com. I was not trolling nor was my answer to your post meant to be disrespectful, nor should it have been taken by anyone as such. You have read my posts before, including one in which I essentially wrote that: 'I write what I mean and do not bandy about with implication'. In fact if you go my reply, to you, on this thread, and reread what I wrote, you will see: I give you the benefit of the doubt and give you an opportunity to explain further. I do not call you troll or say you are no better than someone else despite the opportunity to immediately label you as a hypocrite. I do not attack you, but instead ask for an explanation. Now as for citing inconsistencies, well Fred, I call it as I see it! Again this is not trolling. Maybe you never noticed but trolls are usually the ones who leave inflammatory, disrespectful, and inconsistent questions and or answers, and are not the ones who point out inconsistencies and ask for an explanation.

Fred - I took a look in the mirror so to speak and reread my post with an air of reflection. What I saw was what I just described. Maybe you had better look in the mirror to see what you see, but instead of that, may I suggest: you reread my post and then reread yours - there is not an insult in mine!

Best regards,
Glenn Bartley

Well, scientists can't even come to a full agreement on the definition of a species, so it cannot be expected for there to be an all encompassing definition of hybrid, since what defines a hybrid is in part determined by what defines a species.

A definition of hybrid from the Mendel website you linked to:

hybrid
1. The offspring of two species of the same genus, or two varieties of the same species. 2. A plant obtained by the pollen of one species uniting with the stigma or egg of another. 3. something composed of elements of different kinds or types. From the Latin Hybrida ("mongrel"), the English term was first used in its biological sense around 1600.

Although the term hybrid now enjoys a fairly precise definition, in Mendel's time both hybrid and hybridization were often used to describe cross-fertilization between any species or varieties that were thought by breeders to be significantly different. The term "mule" was then used to denote sterile hybrids. Today, we believe that the offspring of two different species, if they come to be born at all, will be sterile; thus, we would say that what Mendel calls a "hybrid" is really the offspring or progeny of distinct varieties rather than species.

The second paragraph shows the flaw. They state that we believe any inter-species cross will result in sterile offspring. This is false when applied to reptiles, I know of no such cross that has failed to result in fertile offspring.
Their definition is evidentally based on Mendel's work which centered around plants. The differences between botany and the study of vertebrate organisms is significant enough to make it difficult to cross the lines with some definitions.
Mendel also made no provision for the breeding of seperate genera.

Here's another quote from a man who started it all, Charles Darwin in 1859:

I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given for the sake of convenience to a set of individuals closely resembling each other..it does not essentially differ from the term variety which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms.

He equates varieties with species. It is not difficult to imagine a serious scientist of the day such as Mendel being influenced by such a definition and as a result define hybrids as he did. As I said, the definition of hybrid relies heavily on one's accepted definition of a species.

Aristotle was first to define species I believe. He divided plants into trees, bushes, and herbs, and animals into those with or without circulatory systems.
Observe the changes that have come about in that area. Changes have also come about in the 140 years since Mendel.
As science advances, more precise terms are often required.

The biggest problem with that definition is that science has no provision to recognize organisms which are artifacts of man's influence in captivity. These organisms have not been described, nor can they be, and therefore there is no tangible way to grasp them as being independant of others within their own taxonomic classification.

Do you consider a snow corn to be a hybrid? If you follow Mendel's definition then you must. A snow is the result of a cross between two varieties, an amelanistic and an anerythristic.
If you do not consider snow corns hybrids then why not? Is it because the two color phases (varieties) are still the same animal?
If breeds (varieties) of those four legged animals we are not mentioning are hybrids, then every color and pattern morph of every snake in captivity is as well. It's the A=B and B=C idea, one cannot be true without the other also being true.

What it boils down to is the word hybrid, as well as the word species is just that, words created by humans to convey an idea. In these cases though the exact idea is subjective according to the perspective of the person using the word.

Do you think it would be possible or more importantly a situation where it would be benefitial to have hybrids that were not developed out of greed?

Steve, intending no offense but... I don't see any situation where producing a hybrid animal that wasn't intended for food production could possibly be useful, in the pet trade I see no point to it whatsoever...

Admittedly a lot of hybridization initially occurred "accidently" or even naturally in some instances; zoos where a solitary female snake ended up gravid when kept in a multi-species display, freshly imported emmies dropping hybrid neonates but I feel these represent two separate and distinct situations. The zoos were not generally the ones to perpetuate the hybridization, others learned of the genetic compatibility and forced it themselves for sale in the pet trade... and the emmie x ATB example represents either evidence which supports darwinistic evolutionary stances of common anscestry and adaptation or it's entirely possible that even these fresh imports were caged together in captivity prior to being exported from the country of origin and they represent just one more forced fluke created under artificial conditions.

Fred, I don't think Glenn was acting as a troll in the least, he was actually making an argument against the hybridization of animals, althouhg he may not have realized it and it's common practice in any debate, even friendly ones, to cast slight dispersions on the credibility of the information being provided by others...

I do feel that his post suggesting that you were a one time owner of a hybrid becomes important in the arguments against their creation though, nobody will deny that Fred is very much so an educated consumer, nobody can deny that he has made his position on captive hybridization quite clear... yet at one point he purchased a hybrid animal unknowingly, so the argument about "Those who produce them are always upfront and honestly represent the animals" goes right out the window and we are left with "There are a lot of unscrupulous people out there who will misrepresent or fail to represent the lineage and genetics of the hybrids they produce, both damaging the long term breeding populations and ripping off their immediate customer."

Glenn, defining the use of the word hybrid is quite important in these discussions, and something which Rob and I ended up discussing on the other thread which took this direction. The dictionary definitions aren't nearly as specific as the deffinitions used when looking at this from a scientific standpoint, which I believe we are all trying to do, as they also must represent some of the common usages of the word, or older usages which no longer fully apply (as in the Mendel pea experiment). Common use of the word conjures up remembrances of comments such as "This hybrid of electric car and gasoline will revolutionize..." and "This television show represents a hybridization of classic eastern philosophy with a western attitude!"... Neither of which applies in the least when discussing the ethics or validity of hybridization of separate and distinct species of reptile from a taxonomic standpoint.

I certainly can't force anyone to comply with my definitions but I would suggest the following list, at least for this particular conversation, to try and stop some of those misunderstandings that occur when people are using the same word for different things...

Hybrid- A cross between two separate species of organism.

Naturally occurring intergrade- a cross between two subspecies (of the same species) of organism that occurs in nature.

Non-Naturally occurring intergrade- a cross of two subspecies (of the same species) that does not occur in nature.

Breed/Morph- a phenotypal mutation within a specific species i.e.- albino, hyperxanthic, miniature poodle.

Locale/locality- a country of origin or region of origin that is commonly accepted, occasionally but not automatically identical to subspecies.

Species and Subspecies, perhaps we should agree on a specific resource in order to maintain continuity... is the EMBL acceptable to all participants for current and accepted taxonomic designations?

Hopefully we can utilize these as common terms in order to facilitate discussion and any deviation from (or corrections/addendums to) the terms I have listed above can be easily noted in the body of any further messages when the poster wishes to deviate from the above suggested uses.

Lets all try to keep this above the belt with one another and not let it degrade into personal insults (Rob still has my matches by the way), it is possible to disagree utterly with someone and still not get insulting (I'm probably not the best example of how to go about that but in this instance I respect everyone who has so far posted on the subject and I know how quickly these discussions can degrade when someone decides to be... less than polite...).

I'm going to assume that people are using the same terms I am from this point on unless they specifically tell me otherwise. I am open to debate on the validity of terms used now when compared to the vernacular or past usage but I don't think it'll get us anywhere in terms of conclusions.

Thanks.