Hybridization Debate V1.0

[natas]

This is version 1 of the debate "Hybridization". What this thread is not is a place to come and insult, mock, degrade or put down members for their views. Engage the debate in the spirit in which it is meant to be debated.

In this thread we will talk about the following:

• Is Hybridization unethical in the pet trade (reptiles, birds, mammals etc)? Please post your opinion as to why or why not.
• If it happens naturally in the wild, is it right or wrong to do it in the pet trade?
• Examples of hybridization (naturally and man-made)
• Any other discussion relating to hybridization. Examples: Viabilit, Sterile animals etc.

Special rules for this thread:
1) As always, please stay on topic. Off topic replies, will be removed.
2) Limit small replies like "that was awesome", or "Your wrong". Instead of replying like this, use rep or the "thank you" button.
3) Try your best to back your statement up with scientific fact, studies you have read or done.
4) DO NOT plagiarize. If you quote someones findings, please give credit by providing the name, or a direct link.
5) Before posting, please read the rules of this forum.

[ChadRamsey]

well just to name a few of the OBVIOUS reasons why it should NOT be done:

1) species size differential! example: burm smothering ball during breeding! Is that risk worth it? (maybe to some people! even though I cant figure out why!)

2) EGG size differential!!!!!! Could a ball carry and lay burm sized eggs? NO! Could a burm carry ball sized eggs? Who knows and I hope WE never find out!

3) Could it happen in the wild? NO!!!!!!! That would be a heck of a long distance relationship, huh? AS A RULE, do different species interbreed in nature? NO. God took care of that when he created them!
IT"S JUST NOT MEANT TO BE!


And to those that say: "Well some one else has already done it, so i am too!" I ask you this: Just because other people smoke crack are you going to?

Think about it!

[toker]

This is a very sticky one indeed.

Let me play the bad guy here, note that what I say isn't what I think, but rather the side most often called evil.

That which can be done, will be done in time. But on the flip, that which can go wrong, will go wrong.

I am unsure of how far in what direction this conversation is set to go, but lets break what this is down on a very simple level.

A burm is a snake, a ball is a snake, they are both snakes.

So, if you looked at it as, two snakes, it really isn't a big deal.

Keep in mind here, there isn't much of a stretch on what we are talking about and that of inter racial situation in humans.

A person is a person, so is a snake a snake?

Now, what if we are talking the hybridization of critters not in the same gnome… like crossing a parrot with a beetle?

[ChadRamsey]

Very good point Toker!

Humans can’t resist the urge to dominate, manipulate, and destroy EVERYTHING in their path. What concerns me most is that:For some reason we can’t fight that urge! It will be the demise of the entire EARTH and its existence! The snake hybridization is just another notch on the headboard of human domination!

[toker]

Originally Posted by ChadRamsey

Very good point Toker!
Humans can’t resist the urge to dominate, manipulate, and destroy EVERYTHING in their path. What concerns me most is that:For some reason we can’t fight that urge! It will be the demise of the entire EARTH and its existence! The snake hybridization is just another notch on the headboard of human domination!

I am unsure if you are taking the humans destroying the world from my "That which can be done, will be done in time. "

Honestly I see us as a people all being one race in a few hundred years, its not too much of a streach to think most critters of the same subspecies will be the same regardless of human intervention or not.

Mixing two like critters, isnt that bad, it isnt good, but will it be the end of the world, no, I doubt it.

Just as someone from Japan and Africa have a child, bad, no, but there are situations (mostly organ transplants) where that could be "bad".... I hope you see where I am going with this?

[morti]

Many people are not OK with crossing subspecies, like BCI or BCC because it is ethically wrong to them.

Many people are not OK with crossing species like Ball X Blood or Ball X Burm because it is ethically wrong to them.

Many people are not OK with crossing different genera like Kingsnake X Corn snake because it's ethically wrong to them.

Perhaps the reason that it seems less ethically wrong to others comes from a difference in perspective. If you are of the opinion that snakes are absolutely perfect in their wild-type form and we shouldn't mess with them at all, then the idea of hybridizing is going to be completely foreign to you. Perhaps what some of the people who produce these snakes are thinking about is: We already keep them in captivity, and that doesn't strike anyone as ethically wrong. We already breed for good looks (either for morphs or for nicer looking wild types) and that doesn't strike anyone as ethically wrong. Is is so far a stretch to say that for an animal that was bred in captivity for keeping in captivity, hybridization may not strike some people as ethically wrong?

Originally Posted by ChadRamsey

well just to name a few of the OBVIOUS reasons why it should NOT be done:
1) species size differential! example: burm smothering ball during breeding! Is that risk worth it? (maybe to some people! even though I cant figure out why!)
2) EGG size differential!!!!!! Could a ball carry and lay burm sized eggs? NO! Could a burm carry ball sized eggs? Who knows and I hope WE never find out!
3) Could it happen in the wild? NO!!!!!!! That would be a heck of a long distance relationship, huh? AS A RULE, do different species interbreed in nature? NO. God took care of that when he created them!
IT"S JUST NOT MEANT TO BE!
And to those that say: "Well some one else has already done it, so i am too!" I ask you this: Just because other people smoke crack are you going to?
Think about it!

1) This is a risk with many breedings. Males are generally smaller than females in many species. Bad things can happen even just breeding two boas together. You may note that it is the smaller male riding around on the larger female 99% of the time. Point one does not strike me as a high risk.

2) I think we already found out due to the apparently viable offspring in the pictures posted in a previous thread. Looks like one way or another, they can carry each others eggs. Incidentally, Ball eggs are rather large when you consider the size of the snake.

3) You are correct: A Burmese Python is never going to encounter a ball python in the wild. If there have been known instances of this happening in the wild, does this make it ok? For example: Wild collected Emerald Tree Boas have been known to come in gravid with offspring or Amazon Tree boas. In your opinion, is it OK to cross these two species then?

As far as God making them that way, I have almost no argument for you about your views on God. I learned a long time ago that once something is Holy, it's undebatable.

[Sam Sweet]

The hybridization issue has begun to arise with monitors, but is so far rather limited by the behavior of the animals themselves. It is difficult to successfully introduce adult pairs, probably because monitors are basically antisocial in the wild. It appears that wild animals gradually become familiar with their neighbors by scent marks with little or no actual contact, and that cycling females will permit mating by males they "know", but not otherwise. It has proved difficult to breed some species, like water monitors, due to high levels of aggression by females towards "strange" males -- chances are, some of this is also due to trying to mix animals from different localities whose odors and maybe behavior aren't compatible.
.
Nevertheless, there are a few instances, including V. prasinus X V. beccarii (twice), V. glauerti X V. pilbarensis, V. caudolineatus X V. gilleni, and especially V. gouldii (or gouldii flavirufus) X V. panoptes horni. The latter crosses are being made by a breeder in Arizona, who markets them along with "three-way" crosses back to V. gouldii. Since none of these animals are ever going to see the wild again, you could ask "what's the harm" and take the view that these designer crosses are just trinkets. However, there is another way to look at it that is based on the point that many of these monitor species are very uncommon in captivity in the US.
.
Mixing up the gene pools of rarely-kept species is, in my opinion, highly irresponsible. No one keeps studbooks, and as animals change hands the truth of their parentage tends to become obscure. Before long (if not already) there will be no assurance of what you are getting if you manage to acquire V. caudolineatus or V. gilleni, and this is already true for V. gouldii/V. flavirufus. Mongrelization of the very limited pure stocks has no benefit that I can see, and many negatives.
.
Going beyond monitors, I would argue that it is also irresponsible to produce hybrids between native species, whose offspring would have a chance to survive if released in the wild. This is part of a broader issue about releasing any captives that have been exposed to non-native species in someone's collection, or even moving wild animals around between distant capture locations. Sometimes these events are well-meaning, sometimes they are a fast solution to a problem, sometimes they are accidental, but they each carry some risk, notably of transferring parasites and diseases. We now think that chytridiomycosis, which is eliminating amphibian species worldwide, was distributed and established by the widespread use of African clawed frogs for human pregnancy testing. A disease that was native to clawed frogs (and did them no great harm) is now out of the bottle and wreaking havoc on species with no evolved immunity.
.
You can think of hybrid genes as being another kind of 'disease' or 'parasite', whose effects on native populations are largely unknown at the outset, but have at least the potential to be harmful. If there is no good reason to create hybrids other than "to see if I can do it", this seems to be a poor justification.