Why do most people frown upon the production of Burm/Balls?

I understand that it is a hybrid and "unnatural" but so are most of the morphs that are available for ball pythons. I mean a super pastel would have never been able to survive in the wild and people are okay with that. So I just don't understand the stigma behind a Burmese/ Ball python hyprid. These hybrids could be the key to getting all the ball python morphs into burmese pythons and could you imagine a coral glow burmese python? That would be gorgeous!

They have that "stigma" because some people are deeply passionate about the purity of the species and don't believe in creating hybrid animals. And when people are that passionate about their beliefs, they can get pretty loud about it.

I would venture to say that MOST people don't really care one way or the other. I find them (hybrids in general) to be interesting and cool to look at, but I don't have any driving desire to produce them myself. Wouldn't mind owning one or two types just as pets because there are some beautiful hybrids out there.

Why are some folks so passionately against them? Different reasons for different folks. Some worry that too much cross-breeding will muddy the pure lines so much that you'll never know if you're getting a true specimen of whatever species you're looking for. Some just have an emotional reaction against "playing god". Some think it's unnatural. Some worry that it may compromise the health and well-being of the offspring. Whatever the reason, there are enough folks shouting loud enough to make it look like a "stigma"...which can make some otherwise curious but cautious folks shy away from the idea altogether.

I see, thank you JLC. I kind of figured that but wasn't sure if it was because babies came out unhealthy and I just didn't find anything that said they did.

All the base morphs have originated in the wild the Burm Ball could NEVER originate in the wild so there is a BIG difference here to take in consideration in this very example.

My issue with hybrids is the ethic behind it what happen when the third or fourth generation can no longer be distinguish with an animal that is pure and is being sold as pure?

Now there are some hybrids I found cool looking but to me I could only see them as pet only type of animal.

The hack the other day was exactly the sort of reaction you get to that type of situation. As previously stated the mutations we use in piure ball python breeding all occur naturally and we just breed for beauty much like koi carp or pedigree dogs, horses etc

I think a move viable hybrid is the blood python ball, or short tail ball. I have seen some very colourful versions of those and admit they are interesting but I wouldn't choose to try it myself.

The same reasons I frown on all hybrids.

1. All it takes is one dippy politician getting their hands on info about hybridization thinking that means ANY ball python could be a Burmese python and thus dangerous under whatever BS law they have in that district. They see that and ANY species could be a hybrid rattlesnake!

2. Diamond Pythons and Sinaloan Milk snakes are two species practically lost to the hobby because of hybridization that I can think of off-hand. One is so ridiculously expensive that it is basically lost, the other is indistinguishable from nelson's milksnakes and only "shows" as a Sinaloan because of line breeding efforts with no one able to trace lineage back to the true species.

3. Using hybridization to get ball python morph genetics to another species is a road to people lying about what they have. You use the example of getting a coral glow Burmese python. But you just lied right there, because it isn't a Burmese python anymore. It's just some hybrid. You cheated essentially. Then when someone finds some great genetics with his pure Burms no one will believe him because they "probably just crossed it with some ball python somewhere down the line."

4. Hybrids don't have nearly the value people think they do. One only needs to look at the cornduran or jungle corns and how long they hang on the classifieds even though they are very cheap. Even pure plain Jane corns sell faster.

These are just four reasons. I have other reasons based in my desire to keep lines clean because if I buy something I want it to be that specific species because of the natural history aspect of it.

But, jhill001 couldn't you get the ball python morphs and then breed out the ball python genes so essentially you do have a coral glow burmese python? And that was an example I was by no means trying to pass it off as a pure burm and this is all hypothetical as of now. I am extremely interested in the hybrids abd would like to see what can be done with them. I also agree with the point you made about the politician in that we don't need balls being added to the lacey act too. Also Thank you for your input I appreciate it.

You can't really breed a species out of another species after you crossed them. I don't think that's how genetics work. If it was then there would be 0 morphs. I'm sure you could line breed the desired traits to match what you want (what Sinaloan Milksnakes being sold now are). But it's not the same. Given how laws changed in Mexico the pure ones are now unattainable. Not saying they don't exist in captivity but good luck proving it.

I'm kind of curious now. Is a burm/ball hybrid able to reproduce? I thought such a combo would be like mule or a liger, which can't breed at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nucklehead97

I understand that it is a hybrid and "unnatural" but so are most of the morphs that are available for ball pythons. I mean a super pastel would have never been able to survive in the wild and people are okay with that. So I just don't understand the stigma behind a Burmese/ Ball python hyprid. These hybrids could be the key to getting all the ball python morphs into burmese pythons and could you imagine a coral glow burmese python? That would be gorgeous!

---

Well, in the case of people who are fans of morphs - because the concept of irony is foreign to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skiploder

Well, in the case of people who are fans of morphs - because the concept of irony is foreign to them.

---

That's a crock, there is a HUGE difference between hybridising two different species and perpetuating a naturally occuring mutation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nucklehead97

But, jhill001 couldn't you get the ball python morphs and then breed out the ball python genes so essentially you do have a coral glow burmese python? And that was an example I was by no means trying to pass it off as a pure burm and this is all hypothetical as of now. I am extremely interested in the hybrids abd would like to see what can be done with them. I also agree with the point you made about the politician in that we don't need balls being added to the lacey act too. Also Thank you for your input I appreciate it.

---

There is no way you can 'breed out' the ball python genes, there are millions of genes involved in the creation of an individual. Once you've crossed two different species any offspring will always have genes from both species no matter how may times you may breed back to one of the parent species. Once a hybrid, always a hybrid.

Okay thank you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jhill001

The same reasons I frown on all hybrids.

2. Diamond Pythons and Sinaloan Milk snakes are two species practically lost to the hobby because of hybridization that I can think of off-hand. One is so ridiculously expensive that it is basically lost, the other is indistinguishable from nelson's milksnakes and only "shows" as a Sinaloan because of line breeding efforts with no one able to trace lineage back to the true species.

---

Diamond python prices are on par with that of some ball morphs -- and have done a much better job of staying the same -- people buy the BPs. (I say that as someone intent on getting diamonds after I create the correct space for them). But, yeah, I have to agree otherwise. Most of the carpet complex now takes a a couple minutes of homework to find a pure animal, some more than others. I'm afraid of the same thing happening with the Antaresia pythons.

Other than that, everyone's kinda said anything I could say here for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkS

That's a crock, there is a HUGE difference between hybridising two different species and perpetuating a naturally occuring mutation.

---

Crock?

No.

Using the argument that somehow hybridizing two species is a sin against nature, or that it has measurable implications beyond the home vivarium is a crock.

A healthy hybrid is no more taboo than line breeding color morphs in any species that have known defects - ie: the spider wobble. Or selectively breeding animals for aesthetics with no regards to health. That practice sucks whether it's a duck-billed wobbling ball python noodle or an English bulldog that cannot breathe, mate or deliver pups without a C-section.

Both hybridization and selectively breeding for looks are decisions that are made for aesthetic reasons, and in MOST cases, without regards to health. Hence the irony.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jhill001

The same reasons I frown on all hybrids.

I have other reasons based in my desire to keep lines clean because if I buy something I want it to be that specific species because of the natural history aspect of it.

---

You do realize that squamate hybrids occur in nature? So how does that fit into the whole "natural history"
aspect?

Let's start with:

Pituophis Catenifer Sayi X Pantherophis Vulpinis

Crotalus Horridus X Sisturus Catenatus

Are we frowning on those as well?

Unfortunately, I cannot find any scientific evidence supporting snakes of the same species with known physiological abnormalities breeding (in the wild) with the sole purpose of creating aesthetically pleasing and financially profitable offspring.

Well, I voted towards the negative here, but that is JUST FOR ME. I don't care to own or produce any hybrids if I can avoid it. If someone else wants to, I have no issue with it. Bjt it's just not me, and all my reasons have already been mentioned by others. I think it really come down to a personal choice, and I try to respect others choices. Even if I don't agree with them.

I think it would be neat to own certain hybrids at pets only. I don't have any interest in breeding the hybrids myself and would never sell them. The hard part would be purchasing them from the breeder, as from what I understand, most don't want to sell for fear of the buyer breeding and muddying gene pools.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skiploder

Crock?

No.

---

Crock, yes. Crossing two distinct species from completely different parts of the world that have completely different habitats is in no way even remotely similar to perpetuating naturally occuring mutations

Quote:

---

Using the argument that somehow hybridizing two species is a sin against nature, or that it has measurable implications beyond the home vivarium is a crock.

---

Using the term 'sin against nature' is a little too melodramatic for me. And NONE of the snakes we produce have ANY implications beyond the home vivarium. I don't care if you are some kind of Dr Frankenstein intent on crossing anacondas with sand boas, or if you're the most pure locality specific hobbyist around. NONE of the snakes that we produce in captivity will ever be candidates for re-release into the wild. All of them will be going to other hobbyists, collectors or pet fanciers and for the most part, those hobbyists, collectors or pet fanciers are going to want to know what they are getting, not just what it LOOKS like they are getting.

Quote:

---

A healthy hybrid is no more taboo than line breeding color morphs in any species that have known defects - ie: the spider wobble. Or selectively breeding animals for aesthetics with no regards to health. That practice sucks whether it's a duck-billed wobbling ball python noodle or an English bulldog that cannot breathe, mate or deliver pups without a C-section.

---

A healthy Hybrid, doesn't always LOOK like a hybrid. I've been burned before when buying a pair of 'interesting' looking pine snakes. They looked similar to each other but when breeding them together, none of the babies looked like any of their other littermates. It was then easy to tell that the parents were actually Pine Snake X Bull Snake Hybrids. The sky didn't fall, the earth didn't buckle under my feet and nobody got seriously hurt. The only bad thing to happen was that I just wasted three years of my time raising a couple of snakes for a dead end project. Yes I was a little angry about that, but what the heck, it's only time right?

This is why I don't like hybrids. Like I stated in a previous post, no matter how often your cross the hybrid back to one of the parent species, you will never rid yourself of all the genes of the other species they will ALWAYS be hybrids. Even if they look identical to one of the parent species, they will still contain genes from the other parent species which could throw off any future breeding results.

Quote:

---

Both hybridization and selectively breeding for looks are decisions that are made for aesthetic reasons, and in MOST cases, without regards to health. Hence the irony.

---

ALL captive breeding is done for aesthetic reasons. Even the locality specific people will cross their best specimen with their 2nd best specimen. All breeding is done selectively whether the breeder is choosing to breed purely for looks or if they choose to breed for another trait like calm demeanor or good feeding response. Unless the snakes themselves are doing the choosing, it's the keeper making the decision according to his/her wishes NOT natural selection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkS

Crock, yes. Crossing two distinct species from completely different parts of the world that have completely different habitats is in no way even remotely similar to perpetuating naturally occuring mutations

---

Crock no. Are you then OK with hybridizing two distinct species that come from the SAME part of the world with similar habitats? Nature does that. Do we have an issue with that? Or are we talking about select hybrids? Are you against ALL hybrids or just some.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkS

Using the term 'sin against nature' is a little too melodramatic for me. And NONE of the snakes we produce have ANY implications beyond the home vivarium. I don't care if you are some kind of Dr Frankenstein intent on crossing anacondas with sand boas, or if you're the most pure locality specific hobbyist around. NONE of the snakes that we produce in captivity will ever be candidates for re-release into the wild. All of them will be going to other hobbyists, collectors or pet fanciers and for the most part, those hobbyists, collectors or pet fanciers are going to want to know what they are getting, not just what it LOOKS like they are getting.

---

We're not talking about you...we are talking about the most common knee jerk reactions to hybridization - nature doesn't want it and Oh MY God, what happens if they escape? That's a fallacy, and most people who argue that point don't have the slightest clue that hybridization happens naturally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkS

This is why I don't like hybrids. Like I stated in a previous post, no matter how often your cross the hybrid back to one of the parent species, you will never rid yourself of all the genes of the other species they will ALWAYS be hybrids. Even if they look identical to one of the parent species, they will still contain genes from the other parent species which could throw off any future breeding results.

---

I don't buy hybrids. I don't breed hybrids. Don't have a problems with people that do. However, if all of the human deceit was taken out of the equation, do you have any moral objections to producing a hybrid and marketing it for what it is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkS

ALL captive breeding is done for aesthetic reasons. Even the locality specific people will cross their best specimen with their 2nd best specimen. All breeding is done selectively whether the breeder is choosing to breed purely for looks or if they choose to breed for another trait like calm demeanor or good feeding response. Unless the snakes themselves are doing the choosing, it's the keeper making the decision according to his/her wishes NOT natural selection.

---

Untrue. Some people breed their healthiest most robust specimens. Many people breed their prettiest specimens. Some of the best people in this hobby breed healthy and vigorous animals and pay no attention to the paint job. When you get outside the world of morphs and outside the world of fancy artwork, the whole concept of aesthetics becomes less and less italicized.

I can take pictures of 6 rhamphiophis rubropunctatus and I bet you that the aesthetic differences between each animal are so minute that they are immaterial and no one would be able to discern them. Now take 5 black pastels and ask people to rank them. Is the healthiest animal going to be the prettiest, or the ugliest?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alicia

Diamond python prices are on par with that of some ball morphs -- and have done a much better job of staying the same -- people buy the BPs. (I say that as someone intent on getting diamonds after I create the correct space for them). But, yeah, I have to agree otherwise. Most of the carpet complex now takes a a couple minutes of homework to find a pure animal, some more than others. I'm afraid of the same thing happening with the Antaresia pythons.

Other than that, everyone's kinda said anything I could say here for me.

---

They are are still that expensive because they all got crossed with carpet pythons (if I remember right) and they can't get anymore for legal reasons. That could be another great species for the hobby but now it isn't because most are gone/so crossed with others you can tell it isn't a diamond python.

I'm not sure if the initial population we had in the US was enough to sustain a pure population in the long run. But it is an example I'm using.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skiploder

You do realize that squamate hybrids occur in nature? So how does that fit into the whole "natural history"
aspect?

Let's start with:

Pituophis Catenifer Sayi X Pantherophis Vulpinis

Crotalus Horridus X Sisturus Catenatus

Are we frowning on those as well?

Unfortunately, I cannot find any scientific evidence supporting snakes of the same species with known physiological abnormalities breeding (in the wild) with the sole purpose of creating aesthetically pleasing and financially profitable offspring.

---

I am aware of this fact. I don't think it happens as often as some may think. One example is Baird's Rat Snakes and Texas Rat Snakes both share the same range but those who collect them in the wild readily note that while intergrades have certainly and inevitably happened it is incredibly uncommon because both inhabit different niches within the same habitat. The Baird's preferring rocky/hilly areas and the Texas rats seeming to prefer the flatter areas for whatever reason.

Now one could deduce from this previous example that something similar probably happens even with the two combos you've mentioned (and most naturally occurring intergrades for that matter). Otherwise they would never have been separate in their environments long enough to create two distinct species/subspecies.

When I say natural history aspect I mean that captive hybridization doesn't fit into keeping distinct species and subspecies separate. We already live in a world where species go missing every day. As we've seen the overall variety of available species in captivity has dropped as people stop interesting projects in favor of breeding even more ball pythons it's even more important to me.

If hybridization gets too out of control (luckily it isn't that popular yet) we can look forward to a future where you can go to the reptile show and pick your choice of rat snake, gophersnake, Kingsnake, milksnake, python or boa. No more unique species/subspecies. Obviously this is a gross oversimplification but I'm sure you see what I mean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jhill001

They are are still that expensive because they all got crossed with carpet pythons (if I remember right) and they can't get anymore for legal reasons. That could be another great species for the hobby but now it isn't because most are gone/so crossed with others you can tell it isn't a diamond python.

I'm not sure if the initial population we had in the US was enough to sustain a pure population in the long run. But it is an example I'm using.

---

Gotcha. No worries -- it's a niche species, with a much smaller group of people working with pure lines. They're find-able, but I've actually wondered if, with diamonds, if the slightly different care that confused folks early on that didn't hurt their popularity, as well. And may continue to. It was easier and quicker to produce consistent crosses, that still looked very diamondish, than maintain and breed pure diamonds for long periods of time. No argument on diamonds, I think we're just looking at them from different angles.

The only mutts I dislike are the ones you can't identify on the spot, and do cause confusion due to the similarities of both parents. This goes for a majority of subspecies crosses, especially within boa constrictors and carpet pythons, and closely related species such as short tailed pythons. Ironically, a lot less people have a problem with these mixes, and somehow they supposedly aren't a threat to lineage purity. (especially referring to carpet pythons!)
You'd have to be blind to look at a burmball, or a wall python, or any extreme hybrid and confuse it for a pure specimen. Hybrids like these practically look like their own species. The only breeding of these to a parent species would be purely intentional, (and unprofitable) and the odds of accidental gene pool muddling are minuscule. Pure animals like pure carpet pythons, on the other hand, are practically a rarity in the trade. Yet somehow being closely related makes it okay to mix these lineages? To me, it's make sense that it would be less of a reason to mix them.
However, I find the general reasons herpers use to hate hybrids rather weightless or outlandish, especially when applied to the extreme or distinguishable hybrids such as burmball, carpballs, boacondas, etc. The purity of species such as Bredl's, Carpet, and Diamond pythons (for example) is one thing, and I honestly wish those crosses would be heavily condemned, but if someone is seeking to produce a litter of boacondas, bateaters, or burmballs, I don't see a major reason why they shouldn't, so long as they responsible when selling and whatnot, as the usual selling of reptile would entail.

I would hope that the goal of intentional breeding a hybrid would to produce some crazy, half-way alien looking animal anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deborah

My issue with hybrids is the ethic behind it what happen when the third or fourth generation can no longer be distinguish with an animal that is pure and is being sold as pure?

---

I don't think that could even happen with most of the wacky hybrids everyone raves about, unless an evil mastermind with this intention wasted tons of money on such a project for years just to produce these mistakable F4's. This, however, is a problem with subspecies and closely related species in so soon as the first generation, and why pure carpet pythons, for example, are such a rarity in the trade.

But is a bateater or burmball a threat to the purity of the reptile trade? Most likely not.