My intent was not to compare dog breeding to reptile breeding. I normally refrain from mentioning other organisms in a discussion about herpetological hybridizing, but the example of the white schnauzer came to mind only on the basis of people wanting a pure animal as opposed to a cross.
You are correct in that the crossing of dog breeds is not an accurate comparison to that of reptiles. All domestic dogs are of the same subspecies, and crossing them is not even hybridization, since they are all the same animal as far as scientific description goes. If my dog is a hybrid, then it would be because during the initial domestication 10,000 or whatever years ago, that two different types of wolf were used, not because several breeds were contributed in the creation of the schnauzer.
Technically speaking, a breed of dog would be the equivalent of a color phase of cornsnake as compared to cornsnakes as a species. Crossing two breeds of dogs is no more hybridization than crossing two different phases of cornsnakes. When comparing, on a scientific level, an amelanistic cornsnake to a banana cal king, the respective morphs are irrelevant, you compare E.g. guttata to L.g californiae. The same is true with dogs to wolves, since all dogs are taxonomically equal. How though would you compare a Jungle corn to a sinaloan milk?
Dog fanciers look upon their chosen breeds the way we look at snake species for all intents and purposes. While they do not consider the scientific aspect as we do, they do view each registered breed as being seperate from the others regardless of the scientific inaccuracy of that opinion. For this reason they are equally as disturbed about the possibility of buying a cross breed dog thinking they are getting a registered pure breed as we are in buying a snake that is only 75% pure thinking we are getting something else. That was my reasoning in mentioning the white schnauzer.
In addition, dogs being a single taxonomic group allows this crossing to create breeds exactly like the crossing of cornsnake morphs allows the creation of new cultivars without risking the taxonomic integrity of the species.
In herpetoculture as a whole however, we do not have this tidy system. We have many species involved, making it impossible to create only breeds as has been done in dogs. Once two seperate species or even genera of snakes are mixed they have forever lost their identity. They can never be classified as anything other than the market savvy name given them by the breeders. You can't say with accuracy what they are beyond "snake".
The key difference between hybridizing herps and the crossing of any domestic species is usefulness. Dog breeds were derived from a common ancestor purely in captivity to serve purposes according to the breed. Some dogs were bred for protection, some for farm work, some for hunting, and others for pest control (rat terriers etc.) We also have the benefit of established registration systems in place for this and other species to keep track of things.
Likewise, the crossing of cattle and other livestock, as well as plants like apples also serve to aid humanity in their existance.
All of these examples are often given by promoters of hybridizing herps as justification for the practice in reptiles.
In herpetoculture however, there lies no such usefulness. Monetary gain and curiosity are the only two real reasons the practice is done at all. Neither are strong enough reasons in my mind to justify the risk of polluting an unknown segment of the gene pool.
I have been confronted with the reasoning that since I own a dog, eat farm raised meat, and hybrid plants that it is hipocritical of me to be against the hybridizing of reptiles. What we do domestically though has no bearing on reptiles. This is aside from the fact that in the majority of instances such crosses are done within the confines of a species, or at least genera.
The fact is that all other areas are of little to no concern to me. My interest lies in reptiles alone and with that I afford myself the luxury of having two opinions. For this reason my statement about never owning a hybrid was in reference to reptiles alone, as I have no concern with other animals. Let those whose interest lies there worry about how they approach it.
I still have no problems with interspecies breeding so long as people who do it are honest when they sell the offspring.
In an ideal situation, I would immediately agree with you. However this one statement is both reason to approve of it for some and reason to disapprove of it for others.
The fact is there are some who are dishonest, and others who are honest, but simply don't realize that one of their breeders is only half what he thinks it is.
Either way, the result is hybrids entering the genetic pool as pure specimens.
It has happened before, and will continue to happen at times, the question is not whether damage will be done, but how much.
I acknowledge the possibility of some unseen use for hybrids to medicine or genetics, but I can't say there are lots. In either application, I just can't see a situation where a hybrid would be of use in an area where a normal, genetically pure animal would not.
Perhaps medically, certain crossing of venomous species may result in something of benefit, but the possibility, or even the general direction of the experiment would be very difficult to discern beforehand. Instead it would likely be an accidental discovery.
