anti-morphs

so while researching the difference between bci & bcc (i am terribly in the 'no-clue' zone there)

i come upon this site
http://www.boa-constrictors.com/com/com.html

and i'm like okay great. it shows the difference. well i scroll down to the bottom of the page and read this:

Quote:

---

We are also opposed to the production of "artificial boas", as it happens in the U.S. in many places. Boa constrictor with various genetic faults are bred among themselves there, in order to produce "snowboas, jungleboas, chain-linkboas, ghostboas and so on..."

This is not our thing. Therefore we will not publish pictures of such "artificial boas" on our website. For more information just click the button

---

which leads you to this:
http://www.boa-constrictors.com/com/...eds/morphs.htm

and at the bottom is a letter from an american on how he dislikes morphs. i'm glad that all the information on this page is so one sided the page practically leans over.

i loved this bit:

Quote:

---

In general, the probability of two specimens with such genetic defects (amelanism, anerythrism, and axanthism are just that) to meet in the wild is almost null. The creation of such an animal is possible in a captive environment only.

This is done out of pure commercial interest, and there is no limit when it comes to naming these “artificial mutants”.

---

He/She kills me by alluding initially that god-forbid, should these animals go extinct, none of these animals in captivity will be 'normals' they'll all just be these hideous deformed mutant. If i were going to take a stance against a big part of a hobby that i was into, i would actually take a small bit of time to understand the process? To assume we'll never have normals of any type of snake is laughable at most.

also:
i know this pertains to boa constrictors, but i feel it is applicable to any snake we keep & breed.

That is pretty dumb. :)
Some people are almost militant in their ignorance. (not saying that the military is ignorant. Just saying, some people are so strictly ignorant that their rigidy is like that of the military.)

He is a purist who wants to deal with only locale specific pure animals where the lineage can be traced for several generations all the way back to the original imported animal.

There are a lot who prefer locality and pure boas over the morphs especially when it means breeding different sub species to develop one of those morphs.

That person is pretty ignorant in knowledge. If they knew anything they would then know that morphs aka mutant snakes have been "popping up" in the wild for years. If it were not for the wild caught morphs, we would not have all the cool morphs we have today in any of the reptile species.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPJ

He is a purist who wants to deal with only locale specific pure animals where the lineage can be traced for several generations all the way back to the original imported animal.

There are a lot who prefer locality and pure boas over the morphs especially when it means breeding different sub species to develop one of those morphs.

---

Okay, I can understand that. I have a lot of respect for people breeding pure lines (Gus Rentfro's snakes are to die for!). But don't put down morphs. THAT part is ignorant and small-minded.

You don't see us putting down people that breed only non-morph boas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPJ

He is a purist who wants to deal with only locale specific pure animals where the lineage can be traced for several generations all the way back to the original imported animal.

There are a lot who prefer locality and pure boas over the morphs especially when it means breeding different sub species to develop one of those morphs.

---

Is it required to cross localities to produce the morphs? would it be impossible to produce say a pure anery bci with no other localities in the blood?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shhhli

Is it required to cross localities to produce the morphs? would it be impossible to produce say a pure anery bci with no other localities in the blood?

---

Sure, the possibility's there.

The fact is, at some point, all boas were wild caught. And, because many boa species cross locality lines, there's really no way someone can say their boa is 100% totally pure this or that.

I think what SPJ was getting at, however, was that many people are breeding BCC's or BCO's into BCI lines to bring out different colors. For instance, breeding a pink Suriname BCC into a hypo BCI line to bring out more reds and pinks. A lot of people frown on blending these lines for color.

If you buy from the right people and research lines you can get pure localities.

Can I throw something else out here that just struck me?


Weren't all species of snake, at one time, simply one snake? And from this one species of snake---because of mutation and continental drift and population exile and who knows what else---we now have thousands of species of snakes?

Evolution aided by human intervention is still evolution.

I've run into several people who are RABIDLY against "mutants" or morphs. I can't see it. As long as the animal is healthy, I don't mind.
Why the purists have to bash those that like morphs is beyond me. I never thought badly of someone that wants to ONLY breed the locality of one species. I'm always confused why they feel the need to bash morphs. In fact.. some locality types could even be considered a subtle morph couldn't they? It's just a small genetic population.. sort of like a.. recessive gene? Not a huge difference.
At any rate, I've never understood the hatred. To each their own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ladywhipple02

I think what SPJ was getting at, however, was that many people are breeding BCC's or BCO's into BCI lines to bring out different colors. For instance, breeding a pink Suriname BCC into a hypo BCI line to bring out more reds and pinks. A lot of people frown on blending these lines for color.

---

Exactly. Or breeding nics to colombians to bring out pattern mutations.

Some of the boa morphs were naturally occurring that were imported but others were the result of breeding 2 distinct sub species to create the look they wanted.

The bad part of crossing is you end up with muddied gene pools which is what I think the point of the person's website is. He may be a bit harsh the way he says it but he does have a point about it being very difficult to find pure animals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPJ

but he does have a point about it being very difficult to find pure animals.

---

But what if you consider than NO animal is absolutely, 100% pure? Maybe millions of years ago there was a pure boa... just a BC... but I doubt even then. Too many variables, too many things changing in the world at an (evolutionarily) astounding rate.

Yes, these snakes may be changing because people are putting them into an environment where there is no choice but to change. But think about that... hasn't that been happening for as long as the homo genus has been around?

And, along another line... aren't we creating just another sort of domesticated animal? One that we like looking at, that is more docile? Think Chihuahua...



I'm playing a bit of Devil's Advocate because, personally, I wouldn't mix a BCO with a BCI, or BCC with BCO, or whatever. I don't, however, dislike or disagree with people that do... personal preference.

Because this thread has a couple of tangents going...

1) I definitely do not agree with a rabid/radical/militant/"you must believe what I believe or ELSE" enforcement of ideas on ANYONE, regardless of idea or source. It often seems that people who lack the intelligence to back up their ideas with solid arguments & civil debate resort to measures that stem from some sort of violence, whether mental or physical. This is a great big world with a LOT of people and a LOT of opinions/ideas/viewpoints. Those who can accommodate and learn from other people's perspectives without compromising or changing their own "just to fit in" are already ahead of the curve.

I'm not saying that's the case here, but just wanted to put that out there as my $.02.

2) Having said that, I've met and have had extensive conversations with Hermann & can say that while he is very rigid in his viewpoints, he is also steadfast in what he believes & isn't easily swayed - something to be said in this day and age. He's also an extremely passionate keeper who LOVES his boas & maintains an exquisite collection of snakes, and is usually quite willing to help other keepers with husbandry info/questions. Just be ready to debate now and then! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KLG

Because this thread has a couple of tangents going...

1) I definitely do not agree with a rabid/radical/militant/"you must believe what I believe or ELSE" enforcement of ideas on ANYONE, regardless of idea or source. It often seems that people who lack the intelligence to back up their ideas with solid arguments & civil debate resort to measures that stem from some sort of violence, whether mental or physical. This is a great big world with a LOT of people and a LOT of opinions/ideas/viewpoints. Those who can accommodate and learn from other people's perspectives without compromising or changing their own "just to fit in" are already ahead of the curve.

I'm not saying that's the case here, but just wanted to put that out there as my $.02.

2) Having said that, I've met and have had extensive conversations with Hermann & can say that while he is very rigid in his viewpoints, he is also steadfast in what he believes & isn't easily swayed - something to be said in this day and age. He's also an extremely passionate keeper who LOVES his boas & maintains an exquisite collection of snakes, and is usually quite willing to help other keepers with husbandry info/questions. Just be ready to debate now and then! :D

---

Well, it appears that I must spread some rep points around. Great post, Kara!

Steve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KLG

Because this thread has a couple of tangents going...

1) I definitely do not agree with a rabid/radical/militant/"you must believe what I believe or ELSE" enforcement of ideas on ANYONE, regardless of idea or source. It often seems that people who lack the intelligence to back up their ideas with solid arguments & civil debate resort to measures that stem from some sort of violence, whether mental or physical. This is a great big world with a LOT of people and a LOT of opinions/ideas/viewpoints. Those who can accommodate and learn from other people's perspectives without compromising or changing their own "just to fit in" are already ahead of the curve.

I'm not saying that's the case here, but just wanted to put that out there as my $.02.

2) Having said that, I've met and have had extensive conversations with Hermann & can say that while he is very rigid in his viewpoints, he is also steadfast in what he believes & isn't easily swayed - something to be said in this day and age. He's also an extremely passionate keeper who LOVES his boas & maintains an exquisite collection of snakes, and is usually quite willing to help other keepers with husbandry info/questions. Just be ready to debate now and then! :D

---

Agreed, awesome! :rockon: And one of my favorite things in the world is to debate with someone who's base is grounded in knowledge and experience. Having an intelligent conversation..... *sigh* Thus the reason I haunt these forums.

I'll use the dog breeding analogy to express my thoughts on this. You can breed Labrador Retrievers to achieve certain colors...black, chocolate, yellow (and try to degrees of yellow or whiteness) and fox red...but they are still in the end pure Labradors. Now I had a Lab years ago that at first glance most anyone would say she was pure but something was just a tad off on her earset and her tail (not perfectly otter tailed). We found out she most likely had some Husky in her as she was an offspring of racing dogs. In the Canadian Yukon they often breed in a little Labrador to calm down the pure Huskies. Some pups come out appearing almost pure Lab and they are sold or given away.

Anyways...had I bred Shad to a pure Labrador male her pups most likely would have appeared to all intents and purposes purebred Labs. Would I have sold them as such or made it clear they were genetically not pure?

I think it's fine to breed as you like as long as you are first and foremost a good record keeper and very honest with your customers about exactly what they are buying...both visually and genetically. Also of course, that the offspring you produce are sound, without any genetic fault that might occur from your decision to place to breeding age animals together. I believe that's the standard that should be met.

But can't you argue that all dogs, were, at one time, just wolves? And when humans came along and began selectively breeding for color, attitude, habits, work, etc, they made the different breeds of dog we see today. So, what's the difference in people mixing up things then and them mixing things up now? Especially when no dog can really, totally be considered 100% pure anything?

And isn't that what we're doing with ball pythons? Aren't we making a snake that is more pleasing to the eye, more docile, more dependent on humans for survival (A bright white snake and a tiny little tea-cup poodle are all good... but put them out in the woods or the African scrub? The first owl that comes along, they're done for)?

So I guess my point is this: how can you stamp a guarentee on something. This dog is 100% purebred labrador? This snake is 100% pure BCC Suriname Red Tail Boa? When, in all reality, at one point all dogs were one dog and all snakes were one snake?

---Again, I'm playing a little Devil's Advocate. This is an interesting subject to me. But I agree wholeheartedly with Jo that, if you're going to breed two different sub-species together, be very clear and honest about it when selling.