NEW MANGROVE SPECIES

T

Tony

Blocked because of INVALID email address!
INVALID email address
Joined
Jul 20, 2002
Messages
154
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
45
Here is something interesting to talk about. Its not a question, but maybe we can get these forums going a little. I don't know if anyone has heard, but a new species of mangrove has been classified. Varanus indicus has been split and many of the mangroves that were thought to be larger than normal are actually Varanus juxtindicus. It was just recently named. Juxtindicus gets larger, has a shorter, more blunt shaped head, and the tail is more round. Just something interesting I thought I would share. If anyone has any other info on this I would like to here about it. I haven't been able to find much on it. Thanks.

Tony Alles
www.reptileguru.com
 
Hi Tony,

This is the first I'v heard of seperate status being official. Theories
have abounded for years but I'v not kept a variety of mangroves
and therefor didnt have much input to add (same here).
Keep us updated if you find out anymore. It will be interresting
to see how this affects breeding and marketing. I can already hear some of those lovely people just itching to call someone elses mangroves "hybrids".LOL

God Bless
[email protected].
 
Interesting post Tony.

I somewhat disagree with elevating the larger Mangroves to full species status. I have seen many examples of both "versions" and feel that they are more or less just regional variations or subspecies instead of full species. I've always thought they were interesting, but never thought of them as totally different species before, nor do I now. Both will breed together with no problems and from my limited understanding, they both come from pretty much the same places.

I'm curious where you found this info Tony. I haven't been able to dig up anything in my searches over the last couple hours since reading this. I'm not trying to dog you or anything, but your source was credible right? I have sometimes seen wholesalers and retailers proclaiming new species and subspecies on their lists without any basis in fact just to boost sales. Hopefully this is not the case.

And Ben, yes, it will be funny(assuming this new designation is accepted)to see all the people come out of the woodwork claiming all the horrid hybrid breeding that's been done over the years(not that there's been much breeding with Mangroves, though).
 
I recieved the info from John Andragna at Cybersalvator.com. I think he is pretty credible. I have 1 male of this new type and 2 females of the normal type. The females lay infertile eggs about twice a year, but every time I put them in with the male they flip out. They want nothing to do with him. He shows interest though. Personally I agree with you, it should be a subspecies, but not its own species. They are still very similar. You know how it goes with monitors, they get changed back and forth all the time. They say the Blue Spot Monitor is not a type of Timor. Who knows for sure. Thanks for the responses.

Tony Alles
www.reptileguru.com
 
Tony, I forgot to thank you for posting the info for discussion:D

But yes, definitely the larger forms of V. indicus should at the most be raised to subspecific level. I personally think that most of those SE Asian monitor complexes need some revision, though. Especially when it comes to the Timor and Indicus groups. My biggest beef with the V. indicus complex is how vague and encompassing it is. It includes some animals that in my opinion it really shouldn't. For example, V. doreanus are often considered members of the V. indicus group. I am not a super taxonomist or anything, but you can look at a Blue-tail and tell it is very different than a Mangrove. To me they resemble V. salvadorii most(of course on much smaller scale).

And when it comes to the Timors, PLEASE don't get me started. lol If you ask me, they are all the same animal with just minimal variation from island to island. I've never thought the "blue-spot" Timors were anything special or all that different from the "normal" brown and white or brown and yellow forms. Again, I think it is just a case of moderate regional variation within a species that some people are seemingly capitalizing on to name a new species. Even though to ME taxonomy is a BS science, but oh well, I'll stay off THAT soapbox for now;)
 
I have kept both blue tails and crocs for several years. We have a captive bred croc from Ron St. Pierre that is super tame. We were trying to breed blue tails for about 3 years, but quit. No Luck. I have to go with you on that one. They are almost identical especially when you look at their heads and teeth. Blue Tails have huge sharp teeth, just like the crocs. Mangroves are much smaller. If they are making each Timor a different species, why don't they do it with chondros. Arus and Jayapuras come from different islands right? Just kidding. Thanks for the replys.

Tony Alles
www.reptileguru.com
 
Blue Tails have huge sharp teeth, just like the crocs.
Click to expand...

Croc monitors have a dentation that is different from every other monitor species in existance...

Most Monitors the teeth meet in a manner that is almost point to point, the tips of the lower teeth meeting the points of the upper teeth (or close to it anyway), crocs the teeth interlock.
 
I did not know that. All I know is that I have seen both of them up close and the closest thing I have seen to a crocs teeth are blue tails. The shape and size is very similar. That is probably due to their diets though. Thanks.

Tony Alles
www.reptileguru.com
 
Tony,

you are right on the chondro thing. There are insular variations that show significant differences to the mainland forms and to each other, however, all forms will breed together without a problem. Not to mention that since the species is highly variable anyways, it is likely that certain animals displaying traits not recognised as part of that locale's phenotype could crop up just as easily as animals that are more conforming to the accepted phenotype. They are not broken down into separate species or even subspecies. The same is true for Timors, it is regional variation. Although, from what I've seen of the breakdown of the Timors, it seems more based on some slight size differences(expected in insular populations)and colors, whereas chondros seem to have more of a base for distinction from one another(size differences, difference in the structure of the head and tail, differently sized teeth[at least that I've noticed], etc.). If there are more differences in the Timor populations please let me know, but I've seen quite a few of the different races and I haven't noticed anything that would make me jump up and say, "wow, this is so different it must be a new species."

But to get on my soapbox for a minute about taxonomy, it is an entire science based on regional variation. New species are named based on vague or arbitrary standards. Every few years, someone else has an idea and renames a group of animals or regroups them with another set of animals. Then it is all done over again when someone else comes up with another idea. Although I do think it important to have names and/or labels for things, I think that taxonomy goes a wee bit far. For instance, how exactly do you define a species? A population of animals that does not breed with others unlike themselves(or something along those lines, sorry, don't have my Webster's in front of me). However, you have animals like, Cal Kings and Corns, separated by thousands of miles and separated taxonomically into different genera and species, that if given the right conditions, will breed together and produce viable offspring. Definition of a species dissolved, right?

Anyway, sorry to get on the soapbox like that. lol
 
However, you have animals like, Cal Kings and Corns, separated by thousands of miles and separated taxonomically into different genera and species, that if given the right conditions, will breed together and produce viable offspring. Definition of a species dissolved, right?
Click to expand...

::Sets up his own soapbox, clearing his throat::

A species is a naturally interbreeding group of animals that commonly produces viable offspring.

Kings x Corns are foul abominations against nature, wretched mutated disgusting hybrids that should be thrown into sacks and set on fire, along with the people who breed them... Not that I have a problem with hybrids or anything...

Herpers have a responsibility to maintain animals in a naturally viable manner that mimics the natural genetic selections as closely as possible. Color morphs that do not occur frequently are inappropriate and damaging (it's become difficult to find normal corn snakes), subspecific crossing that does not commonly occur is damaging, crossing local specific animals that are clear and distinct breeding populations is damaging and hybridization the worst of the lot.

Besides, the wild phenotypes look best anyway.
 
Thank you Seamus. Glad I got the actual definition of species from you...

But just so everyone knows(hopefully this isn't too confusing as it's kind of hard to read):

Species as defined by Merriam-Webster Online:

1 a : KIND, SORT b : a class of individuals having common attributes and designated by a common name; specifically : a logical division of a genus or more comprehensive class c : the human race : human beings -- often used with the <survival of the species in the nuclear age> d (1) : a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding, and being designated by a binomial that consists of the name of a genus followed by a Latin or latinized uncapitalized noun or adjective agreeing grammatically with the genus name (2) : an individual or kind belonging to a biological species
Click to expand...

::pulls out the soapbox again::

I personally think many of the hybrids out there are fascinating little "abominations." Unfortunately, some level of hybridization is part of nature. Certain species and subspecies are now being theorized to be hybrid populations that have sustained themselves and become viable populations. I can name two species that are examples of these theories right now.
1. Python timoriensis, the Timor Python. Believed by many to be a hybrid race between Reticulated Pythons and Amethystine Pythons. Supposedly they were originally viable hybrids that eventually kept breeding together and became a viable stable population of new snakes(I like the idea, but don't FULLY agree with all the details).
2. Red Milksnakes. They occur in natural hybridization zones of Scarlet Kingsnakes and Eastern Milks. They are another species that supposedly began as natural hybrids turned viable populations.
And for kicks I'll go ahead and throw in a 3: Black Milksnakes. Supposedly began as naturally occuring intergrades of Andean and Honduran Milksnakes.
Oh wait, while I'm at it I'll kick in a 4: Blotched Kings. This is another example. This is a naturally occuring intergrade of the Eastern King and Florida King. Hybridize them in captivity and you will end up with Blotched Kings. Also throw in the fact that this "subspecies" seems to only occur in areas that are natural intergrade zones between the two.

I guess my point is that hybrids are a part of nature and make a fascinating part of herpetoculture. And yes, there are hybrids going on that would most likely never occur in nature(Blood Pythons x Balls for instance), but the fact that these breedings occur and the fact that the offspring of many snake hybrids are viable and fully capable of reproducing has to makes me question alot of how we classify and separate animals, because after all, names and range maps are pretty much human inventions. I don't think the animals in question particularly give a rat's a$$. Also add in the fact that most species just don't spontaneously explode into being. Where do they come from?

When different races of humans get together are they abominations as well? After all, chances are pretty good that if left to their own devices(without airplanes, cars, etc.), a Masai warrior and an Eskimo would probably never meet and stay within their own population, right? Now, if you follow the definition of a species to the tee, an Eskimo and the Masai warrior would be different species, right? If by some chance they were to meet and breed, would their offspring be abominations that should be bagged and burned as well? I mean, they would be hybridizing and defiling nature right?

I of course think that the "normal" wild look of a species is superior, but I will not deny that I am also attracted to many of the anomolies as well. I think to call anything that is not the normal wild phenotype an "abomination" is pretty harsh. Some of these anomalies DO occur in the wild, and though few survive, some DO and become members of the breeding population and pass on their genetics. Here in GA for instance we have a naturally occuring population of Anerythristic Cornsnakes. We also have naturally occuring hybrids between Corns and obsoleta complex ratsnakes.

::Steps off of soapbox for now::

I hope noone takes offense to any of this I've said, but I think this is a valid discussion and I figured I would add more of my arguments(though this probably isn't the right thread to discuss all of this).
 
From mangroves to cornsnakes. Pretty drastic change. Are we still in the right forum? I personally don't like hybrids, I think they are a waist. Why would you pay $2500 for a burmese/retic hybrid. Each one of those is worth $50. Is that how it works Burmese times a retic. $50 times $50 equals $2500. I do like the color and pattern morphs. Those are worth every penny.

Tony Alles
www.reptileguru.com
 
There's a genetic behavioral basis that effects the natural likely hood of interbreeding, a king encountering a corn would be far more likely to consume the other animal rather than mate.

I do fully agree that taxonomy is a science based to a great degree on the ego of taxonomists, even since the practice of naming it after the first individual to describe it has been put aside, there are a huge number of people who will jump on any excuse to get their names in those parenthesis...

Add in the fact that evolutionary theory is open to a great deal of interpretation and it starts causing yet more problems. While there are a few instances (as named by Rob) of animals crossing on a regular basis to create subspecific or even hybridized intergradiations, these animals that do so naturally are all closely associated taxonomically to start. One of the main contentions of evolutionary theory is that separate breeding populations that evolve to meet separate stimulus will eventually become different enough to be considered separate species, a cessation of the natural interbreeding that causes them to be considered a species. Since this is a constant and ongoing process, factors that push previously separated populations into interaction once again, provided those factors happen "early" enough after the factors that caused the separation, viable and natural interbreeding can occur. This should not be mistaken for the hybridization of many of the species that have been forced together in captivity. Retics x Burms, Balls x Bloods, Carpets x Chondros, Savannah Monitors x Niles, Corns x Cal Kings... These are all organisms that have been separated by geography and behavioral tendencies to a degree that removes them from the arguments about natural intergradiation.
 
I just wanted to add in the fact that some of the initial captive breedings of hybrids were total flukes and happened by accident. I believe that the first corn x cal kings were the result of an accidental pairing, but I don't remember exactly. I DO know that this was the case with the first Carpet x Chondros that were produced(Cincinatti Zoo if I remember correctly, but I'd have to recheck on that to be sure). That was unintended and completely accidental(or so I've been told). There were none of the scenting and swapping techniques that go on in most hybrid breeding and these animals just decided to make some babies. ;) Carpets and chondros do both inhabit alot of the same places and habitats in Australia and New Guinea, so possible intergrades could occur in nature(much like the natural intergrades that occur with Emeralds and Amazon Tree Boas), though probably not on a regular basis.

For some reason though, taxonomy always reminds me of one of my favorite all time quotes: "Science is but an organized system of ignorance." Don't know who said that though. It may be a BS science in my book, but it sure is fun discussing it:)
 
Incidentally, I don't think Merriam Webster qualifies as a reliable source of information when discussing biology (No offense Rob)...

Admittedly this definition is something that will be slightly biased as I have great fondness for the particular Author (Quote him in my signature) but it's really far better than the Merriam Webster version.

From the revised twenty fifth anniversary text of "Sociobiology" by Edward Wilson, early on in Chapter Two while deffining terms that will be used later in the text is the following excerpt...

In sexually reproducing organisms, including the vast majority of social organisms, a species is a population or set of populations within which the individuals are capable of freely interbreeding under natural conditions. By deffinition the members of a species do not interbreed freely with those of other species, however closely related they may be genetically. The existance of natural conditions is a basic part of the definition of the species. In establishing the limits of a species it is not enough to merely prove that genes of two or more populations can be exchanged under experimental conditions. The populations must be demonstrated to interbreed fully in the free state. To illustrate this point, let us consider a familiar case with some surprising implications. Lions (Panthera leo) and tigers (Panthera tigris) are genetically closely related, despite their marked differences in outward appearance. They are sometimes crossed in zoos to produce hybrids, called "tiglons" (tiger as father) and "ligers" (lion as father). But this breeder's accomplishments do not prove them to belong to the same species. The ability to hybridize under a suitable experimental environment can be said to be a necessary condition under the biological species concept but not a sufficient one. The important question is whether the two forms cross freely when they occur together in the wild. Lions and tigers did coexist over most of India until the 1880's, when lions began to be reduced even more quickly than tigers by intensive hunting and deterioration of the environment. Now lions are nearly extinct, limited to a few hundred individuals in the Gir Forest in the state of Gujurat. There can be no doubt that lions and tigers were fully isolated reproductively during their coexistance, for no tiglons or ligers have ever been found in India. Suppose that lions and tigers had been shown to be wholly insterile under experimental conditions. This could have reasonably been interpreted to mean that they are seperate species, because the condition could be assumed to hold true in nature also. But the opposite evidence means nothing, since many other genetic devices in addition to mere intersterility might (and obviously do) operate to isolate them in nature. In fact lions and tigers differ strongly in their behavior and the habitats they prefer. The lion is more social, living in small groups called prides, and it preffers open country, The tiger is solitary and is found more frequently in forested regions. These differences between the two species, which almost certainly have a genetic basis, could be great enough to account for their failure to hybridize.

A population that differs signifigantly from other populations belonging to the same species is reffered to as a geographic race or subspecies. Subspecies are seperated by distance and geographic barriers that prevent the exchange of individuals, as opposed to the genetically based "intrinsic isolating mechanisms" that hold species apart. Subspecies, insofar as they can be distinguished with any objectivity at all, show every conceivable degree of differentiation from other subspecies. At one extreme are the populations that fall along the cline- a simple gradiant in geographic variation of a given character. In other words, a character that varies in a clinical pattern is one that changed gradually over a substantial portion of the entire range of the species. At the other extreme are the subspecies consisting of easily distinguished populations that are differentiated from one another that are differentiated by numerous genetic traits and exchange genes across a narrow zone of intergradiation.
Click to expand...

By this argument, some of those populations that are currently thought to be multiple species may be representatives of that second class of subspecific designation, just it hasn't been properly realized, studied and accepted yet. It also means animals with a similar phenotype (The mangroves in question for instance) might simply be examples of multiple species or subspecies that haven't been properly studied, analyzed and catagorized yet. In no instance however would you find an argument for seperate and distinct species occuring at seperate ends of a continent with no interconnecting breeding population being an identical species simply because they can reproduce under lab conditions.

On a more personal note, I have a great dislike of many non-naturally occuring morphs, many forced and non-naturally occuring intergradiations and all hybrids. As a personal moral issue I feel that herpers as a collective group have a responsibility to maintain their animals in a manner that retains the natural uniqueness of the respective populations and in a naturally viable state. Hopefully I can exp,ain this without coming off like an enviro-nutcase but... There are strong indications that many populations of specific species are being threatened by numerous factors, some known and some unknown. If there comes a point when educated and responsible professionals need to repopulate wild stocks, they need a viable pool of animals with which to do so. Before people begin discussing the rediculousness of this as a basic contention, I would ask that they look at amphibian populations worldwide and Cheetas as easy and popular examples. How difficult is it to find a normal corn these days? A corn that not only displays a commonly occuring and sucessful wild phenotype, but only carries the genetics for that displayed set of characteristics? If there comes a time when wild populations need to be supported to some degree, will we have the captive animals to do it successfully?

Hybridization is a seperate matter, I realize many individuals like them because the offspring produced are both "new and exciting" and unable to be regulated by any existing laws that mention species, but it's a false and unnatural crossing of animals and the offspring do have a tendency to be more problematical than either of the parent species (to some degree or another anyway). An easy example of that... I have a buddy who tried to produce his own "borneo bat eaters", crossing burms with retics, he contacted Bob Clark to get some background and followed the instructions to the letter. Copulation was successful as was egg laying (he ended up with seventy some-odd eggs). He got a single neonate out of the entire lot and it was cycloptic. This is a man who has a lifetime of experience keeping and breeding the representative parent species with great hatch rates and huge success so the obvious failure can't be blamed on husbandry issues, the animals are simply not meant to interbreed.

It's a moral issue that everyone has their own personal thoughts on, there is some justification for both sides to any given individual and it's really a matter of personal morals, ethics and perception.

I'm happy to debate the issue as the issue it is but, Rob, c'mon, trying to throw an implication in there that I was somehow extolling racist virtues was below the belt and not needed or remotely true.

I did retype the above quoted text myself, any spelling or grammatical errors are mine and I apologize in advance if any exist (It's two A.M.).

Thanks for reading.
 
I'm sort of dissapointed that nobody has responded to this thread after my last post, it was shaping up to be quite a decent debate... although it might be more appropriate if the last half the thread were moved into a general Cultivars/genetics/Taxonomy forum.

Is the lack of responses directly related to my long winded tendencies by any chance?
 
Seamus, first off, I was not trying to imply you were a racist at all. I was just merely using that example to show that human "hybrids" such as the example I gave would not occur under normal circumstances(if there weren't cars airplanes, etc, to bring them together), but these kind of things happen, just as with certain captive snake hybrids. It's hard to explain exactly how I wasn't trying to call anyone out as a racist, but you will have to take my word for it that I was not trying to do that. Only trying to show the flawed(in my opinion) thinking of the definition of a species. Perhaps it was not the best example, but back when the world wasn't obsessed with political correctness, Africans and Eskimos would be considered separate species from one another. And if you follow pretty much ANY definition of a species, they would be considered separate species as well am I right?

However, I think that your statement of burning hybrids and the ones who "create" them was overly harsh. But that is your opinion, and you are of course entitled to it as I am entitled to disagree, as I do;) I do totally agree that the wild-type colors and patterns are more attractive than most of the captively propagated morphs, but I do think they are more than simply nature's defecations. They all have their place whether someone likes it or not.

About the Borneo Bat-eaters: Are you sure your friend just didn't have bad luck with that clutch? I have an acquaintance here that produced a clutch of pure Burmese Pythons. There were 50 eggs, only 5 of which proved viable. And of those 5, 3 were badly deformed and did not survive more than a few days. This person has bred burms before and the conditions were perfect throughout the process. However he just had a bad clutch. It happens to everyone at some point. And your friend is not the only person to attempt producing Borneo Bat-eaters. There are others who have had good success producing them. I am of course not trying to put down your friend, but sometimes things don't turn out for some reason and that could have been the case, not just hybrid infirmity.

Also, your comment about hybrids being inferior I don't totally agree with. Many of the hybrid Lampropeltis being produced are actually EASIER to get started than their "pure" parent species and oftentimes make superior feeders. There is such a thing as hybrid vigor that comes into play in these situations. Oftentimes the offspring of some hybrids end up being superior in some ways(even though in my opinion just about ALL hybrid snakes are BUTT UGLY) than their "pureblood" counterparts. Take for instance some of the Greyband hybrids. We all know how difficult some baby Greybands can be, however, I have spoken to hybrid breeders who tell me that feeding issues seem to disappear when certain snakes are crossed. And of course there are those hybrids that are more difficult to get going than their original stock. But I think overall from the conversations I've had with the few hybrid breeders I know(the ones that will admit to doing it anwyay), most of their hybrids make easier captives.

Also, when it comes to legal issues, here in GA it doesn't matter. If it even has only 1% of a native species in it's blood, you cannot legally own the hybrid here. They are not mentioned in the actual law, but talking with some authorities here, this is pretty much the mandate. Of course I am not familiar with the laws everywhere else, but I honestly don't think there is that much demand to skirt the laws on something as low-dollar as most hybrid US snakes(corn x cal kings go for what, $30 now?).

And since you brought up ligers and tiglions, the ones I have seen(admittedly only a couple) have not been incredibly different at a glance from regular lions or tigers. Of course there are differences, but I don't think if you were out in and Indian preserve and you saw one moving along you'd be able to properly identify it as a liger. However, I do agree that there probably isn't THAT much hybridization going on between the two.

And no, I don't think if left alone, corns and cal kings are going to make babies. However, I do think that if you dropped a large group of one into the natural habitat of the other, eventually you would see interbreeding of the two. Of course it isn't 100% natural, but it is more natural than pairing them up in cages, then switching females and all that mess.


Anyway, I could type tons more, but I think I've prattled on enough for now. lol
 
Perhaps it was not the best example, but back when the world wasn't obsessed with political correctness, Africans and Eskimos would be considered separate species from one another. And if you follow pretty much ANY definition of a species, they would be considered separate species as well am I right?
Click to expand...

At one point in time Humans were broken up into subspecific categorizations. The difficulty with comparing humans to other organisms when looking at items of this nature lies in the history that we have to look at. Viewing a species as a naturally interbreeding population and then taking organisms that look superficially different and come from different areas without looking at what's in between won't give you a valid picture of the Natural History involved. Looking at humans solely as animals for a moment, we have clear and conclusive evidence of historical human migratory patterns that shows the populations in Africa and those in North Western North America are related. Since there's a clear chain of evidence supporting this, but the people were obviously not an interbreeding population, there were subspecific designations made. The advance of Political Correctness :):makes a rude gesture::) combined with the ease of transportation has caused those to be dropped. Other than a few people who were not looking at it in a rational manner however, humans have been considered a single species since before the advent of even darwinistic evolutionary theories.

This relates to a large number of those Lampropeltis species that you mentioned. Superficially they appear different enough to have gained separate classifications on the species level because, to be honest, the focus on the natural history and the behavioral aspects of taxonomy is a fairly recent school of thought (Last thirty or forty years it's been gaining strength). There exists a very strong possibility that they will be recatagorized and given subspecific designations of a single (or a few) species as better and clearer evidence emerges.

About the Borneo Bat-eaters: Are you sure your friend just didn't have bad luck with that clutch?
Click to expand...

Fairly certain. I didn't assist in the incubation but that total was the product of two females, so it would have been two bad clutches rather than a single one and I would trust him to do it right... However I do agree that two clutches are hardly definitive proof.

Also, your comment about hybrids being inferior I don't totally agree with. Many of the hybrid Lampropeltis being produced are actually EASIER to get started than their "pure" parent species and oftentimes make superior feeders.
Click to expand...

Under captive conditions which must be considered artificial. Plus, you have now gotten me thinking, which usually results in my diving into piles of books and getting lost for awhile, Lampropeltis species designations may not be entirely accurate.

With regards to animals like the greybands though... Greybands aren't hard to get feeding. They're just hard to get feeding on mice. Give alterna a short brumation period after hatching and offer them some small lizards and you'll have amazing (and expensive) success. This is an example of how natural behaviors can become distorted under artificial conditions. When looking at the biology, and working from my personal viewpoint that natural is better, conditions like that become somewhat invalid when attempting to determine the truth behind the matter.

I don't think if you were out in and Indian preserve and you saw one moving along you'd be able to properly identify it as a liger. However, I do agree that there probably isn't THAT much hybridization going on between the two
Click to expand...

But there have never been even a single liger or tiglon verified to exist in nature EVER... This includes the period of time when the potential parent species had bands of cohabitation and the period of time when they were considered a serious threat to humans and livestock and people were encouraged to exterminate as many as possible. It's not a situation like the ATB x ETB where they have cropped up in the wild. Moving that same principle back to the Cal kings x corns... Cal Kings may not cohabitate with corns, but there are kingsnakes which do. I haven't seen any reports or even heard any rumors about naturally occurring hybrid populations... If you have, I'd love to see them and I'm always open to new information but I don't think that any records or even unconfirmed reports of that situation exist.

However, I do think that if you dropped a large group of one into the natural habitat of the other, eventually you would see interbreeding of the two.
Click to expand...

I do disagree... I believe that the natural behavioral controls and natural instincts would keep the individuals separate under the conditions that we're hypothesizing about.

Hybridization isn't just a matter of genetic compatibility, it's a matter of genetically ingrained instinctive tendencies and occasionally physical limitations (I've been hearing rumblings about crossing species where the hemipenal structure would prevent even forced captive breeding via artificial insemination).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top