Genetics and lineage information

I just figured discussions should go in the discussion forum. There were a bunch pages or so of it on a BOI thread, keeping a name at the top that arguably should or should not be there. All opinions, myself included.

Has anyone actually pursued a libel case from something posted on the BOI?

I have no intentions of discussing the thread that led me to post here.

My questions were general and directed towards discussion.

Thanks For your responses.

Now.... I ask again, a little more specifically. What is acceptable lineage of a genetic morph animal in our industry. The parents? The grandparents? The family tree? I want opinions, please.

When specifics beyond the pairing itself are discussed, and promised to be included on the photo ID - that would be my expectation.

(This was part of another thread - I split it, making this discussion separate, to avoid the potential problem of people reverting back to the BOI discussion which prompted it or this discussion being ignored because of an unrelated title).

Fair enough. Thanks actually. I thought about reposting a new thread, after I hit the submit button on my reply.

I do not want this to be a thread of judgments for or against anyone.

My question for discussion. What is acceptable lineage of a genetic animal in our industry. The parents? The grandparents? The family tree? I want opinions, please.

My opinion of an answerdisregarding the source reason for my posting this)A receipt from seller to buyer. Or better, A photo ID of a given animal with reference or pics of the parents. This is lineage. Anything beyond itis a bonus.

I refer mainly to boa constrictor morphs, and would love to hear opinions across the board. From what I have seen looking into other things, the reputable chondro keepers have it down. I doubt those types of lineages will happen much in the mainstream flooded markets of some staples in our industry.

Thoughts please....

Should have read....

My opinion of an answer: (disregarding.....

I think that most people are looking for proof that the snake is what they are told it is...and, in those cases, information about the parents is sufficient. Sometimes, though, people are looking for more. You mentioned GTPs as an example, and I will point to carpet pythons. That subsection of the hobby is a mess, because so many people have done random breedings and just applied tags based on appearance. For that reason, some of the more dedicated breeders offer extensive lineage information, to show that their snakes are what they say (ie pure coastals).
This is not wholly unheard of in the boa world, as I have seen people do the same for Hog Island and firebelly boas.

In all honesty, and realistically, the demands of lineage and the proper presentation of said lineage is really subjective when we are speaking solely for "Colombian" BCI Morphs; I am making it a point to state this because my opinions on this do not carry over into the Insular Island or BCC animals as the market preparation and presentation is different for each.

There are few times where I feel it is necessary to go back multiple generations on a boa constrictor. Most of the time, seeing what the parents are is all you really need to know exactly what that animal is and exactly what that animal is capable of in a genetic sense.

When it comes to recessive traits, if an animal is bought as a het. albino and it was bred from an albino parent and a het. parent, then it is het. albino, this is what Biology dictates. There really is no reason to go beyond the parents at that point for verification. Now, this may change a little if the animal was supposed to be het. Lipstick Albino. Since the Lipstick Albinos are animals bred for specific characteristics and traits, then one would expect that the original animals could be traced back to Tom Burke, regardless of how many generations have passed. The same could be said for true Coral Albinos or any "specialized" morph. When an animal has been bred specifically to present enhanced traits and characteristics that would not otherwise be considered part of the norm, asking for several generations of proof is not unreasonable especially when terms like "Coral" can be abused.

Now, when it comes to dominant (co-dominant, incomplete dominant, whatever you want to refer to them as) traits, I think things are a bit different. In my opinion, if a Jungle is a Jungle, it is a Jungle because it is a Jungle. You can tell the difference between a Jungle and a Probable or a Low Expression Jungle with minimal effort. If you have any doubt that the animal is a Jungle, then do not sell it as a Jungle and do not buy it as a Jungle. At this point, in the development of the Jungles, I feel it is a bit absurd to want documentation going all the way back to the original Swedish animals. There are many subpar and pathetic representations of the morph floating around the market, but when you run across a without a doubt Jungle, you know it, and when you can clearly see that one or both of the parents are Jungles, that is the confirmation. If you cannot tell, by yourself, that an animal is or is not a Jungle, you should not be dealing with the morph.

The expectation of a specific source of lineage and documentation means that someone would have to be regulating the market and making sure breeders are abiding by the demand. This is not realistic, logical or feasible in this industry. Because "Colombian" animals are so easily obtained these days and because so many of their morphs are very well established and very easy to figure, documenting all the way back to the number of the tree they fell out of is just ridiculous.

Basically, unless the animal is from a "specialized line", I do not see the point on massive documentation and extended lineage. Here are the animals I feel it is necessary on because without being able to link these animals to founding stock, you cannot rightfully claim them as such:

Lipstick Albinos
Coral Albinos
EBV Group Animals
Monstertails
Pastel Dream
Ferrari Line Pastels
Harlequins
Salmons
Aby Line
Ivory
White Group
Red Group
Lovell Line
Crabe Line


... and so on ... and so forth ...

The above listed animals are very specific animals that were bred specifically for enhanced characteristics and are a product of the originating breeder. Proof that these animals are linked to the founding stocks are important, so requesting paperwork for a few generations (either in a physical sense or even just photos) is not unreasonable.

When all is said and done, paperwork is really just a validation that some people may take seriously and some people may not. If the animal produces, what does it matter? There are numerous instances of hets. being sold with paperwork that ended up being forged. What it really comes down to is the reputation of the seller and the trust the buyer has in that seller.

Lineage (anthropology) or kinship, descent group that can demonstrate their common descent from an apical ancestor or a direct line of decent from an ancestor.
Lineage (evolution), group composed of species, taxa, or individuals related by descent from a common ancestor

Please notice it does not pertain to any 1 species either person or animal.

To put it bluntly I would say if you are looking for a specific traits that are not known to be genetic the farther back you can trace those traits the better to a future understanding of them genetically speaking.

For known genetic traits (Morphs) they should be traced back to the first place in its ancestory that shows that trait if the animal itself does not have it. If the animal is expressing the known trait itself and it can not be confused for something else then no real need to trace back at all unless other non-visual traits are involved

Now if you are talking a pure breed of a locality, then I would say you have to trace it back to when all the ancestory was removed from the locality to be 100% sure.

If we are talking about traits specifically bred for by a breeder, the only way to get that specific named line is an animal that was bred for by the breeder named. Once an animal from a specific breeder breeds with an animal not selectively chosen by that breeder the offspring can no longer carry that breeders name as they have lost control of the selective breeding process that creates an animal that is worthy of carrying their name.