|
RE: Come on guys(little help here)
|
Reply
|
|
by AquaHerp on September 4, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am not starting an argument. My own "opinion" is that I wonder about those who feel that the original snake is not good enough.
As far as them breeding in the wild, I have heard of one report of these two species from the wild and that one was questionable in the end.
I think that you got some great advice from a few here on matching them up. Fortunately, both are fairly placid towards other snakes, just don't do any feeding with the two together.
DH
|
| |
|
RE: Come on guys(little help here)
|
Reply
|
|
by Caduceus on September 18, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In addition to what was written above, when crossing species it is sometimes helpful to put the shed from the opposite sex of the same species in the cage with the animals you plan on breeding before you introduce the opposite sex of the species you intend to cross them with. For example, If you are crossing a male gaboon and a female rhino it would probably be helpful to put a shed from a female gaboon in the male gaboons cage and a shed from a male rhino in the female rhinos cage a few days before you introduce them. It may also be helpful to put a another male gaboon in the cage with the male gaboon a few days before you breed them. Another technique that you may want to consider is artificial insemination. Here are a few links that you should definitely read: A TECHNIQUE FOR ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION IN SQUAMATES (http://www.smuggled.com/AIS2.htm ) and 247 SUCCESSFUL ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION IN THE CORN SNAKE (ELAPHE GUTATTA), USING FRESH AND COOLED SEMEN (http://www.physorg.com/news9159.html).
Danny, it is important to remember that Hybridization is a form of evolution and that when you practice artificial selection through any means you are practicing science, creating new species, and improving the line of snakes you own by increasing genetic diversity. Yes, hybridization does have its drawbacks, many of the pregnancies fail, some of the offspring maybe infertile, and you may get a unique animal about which little is understood. However, when hybridization is successful it is the most rewarding thing you can experience. Your are literally watching the evolution of life in front of you. Not to mention that you have just created a totally unique animal to study and understand that only you have. This animal may have physiological, genetic, or evolutionary advantages over its biological parents (hybrid vigor), it may also have scientific vigor in the sense that it may be able to produce a new venom that can create a more potent anti-venom, can fight cancer, etc. The scientific possibilities are really endless. I can think of 100's of studies you can conduct just off of the top of my head. The people in the zoological sphere who consider themselves "purist" are not taken serious by any professional zoologist as all intelligent zoologist recognize that the pro's of hybridization out way the cons. Purist are usually outspoken and vocal however their ideas are anti science, anti evolution, anti life, and anti intellectual. No professional zoologist would advocate for stunting or retarding the evolution of a genus by supporting genetic erosion and undermining genetic diversity; and since advocating for the stunting or retarding of a genus by stopping it from out crossing is no different than advocating for the genetic erosion of a species by stopping it from randomly generating mutations that act on natural selection it is only a matter of time before the idea of purism falls into complete obscurity. In fact, what purist are actually advocating for is senseless cruelty and abuse because they denying animals in captivity the ability to adapt and change over time and this is no different than trying to keep baby alligators in 10 gallon tanks their whole life and seeing what happens. Denying an animal the room it needs to grow is the abstract equivalent of, and no different from, denying it the need to diversify.
|
| |
|
RE: Come on guys(little help here)
|
Reply
|
|
by Caduceus on September 18, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
In fact, the idea that evolution offends some people is so absurd that it actually intrigues me. So if there is any purist in the room I have to ask, what is it about evolution that offends you ? Do slow gradual morphological changes offend you ? Do genetic mutations offend you ? Does the dramatic changes the occur when to organisms outcross offend you ? Does natural selection offend you ? What about artificial selection ? I honestly want to know. What is it about evolution that offends you ?
|
| |
|
RE: Come on guys(little help here)
|
Reply
|
|
by JHarrison on September 18, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ray, your misguided ideas about evolution offend me.
Now, evolution itself? MAHVELOUS!
You are greatly oversimplifying the idea of hybrid vigor. In fact, there are typically barriers of some sort that prevent hybridization in the wild. In captivity, there is no evolution occurring because the animal is no longer in its natural habitat, instead it is in captivity. Therefore breeding in captivity is artificial selection. There are cases when the two may combine, but stating that hybridizing Bitis in captivity is evolution is complete bunk. Also, even if the venom did have some magical anti-cancer properties, it would be useless in research because the likelihood of reproducing the same venom would be very small. Which combination of genes resulted in the amazing venom? No way to know and no way to genetically engineer that at this point in time. Likewise, how exactly would any antivenin produced from a hybrid be useful? MAYBE there are a few hybrids here and there in the wild (I remain mostly unconvinced of this) but certainly people are bitten much much much more frequently by the actual species in question than by any sort of hybrid.
Danny, I personally don't understand why people want to hybridize, to me it is too much like playing God, which for me is saying something since I am an atheist. However, it is more important to me that animals in captivity are properly cared for, and if your guys are healthy that would be enough to make me happy, even if we disagree. A polite note to you regarding wanting people to respond to your posts: I for one would be more likely to comment if you used capital letters. My eyes get tired reading the internets and lack of clearly visible sentences is tiring. I feel the same way about very terrible lolspeak.
|
| |
|
RE: Come on guys(little help here)
|
Reply
|
|
by CHRIS on September 18, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Danny How do you feel about your neighbor makeing out with a spider monkey,would that not be a new design in evolution? Chris
|
| |
|
RE: Come on guys(little help here)
|
Reply
|
|
by Caduceus on September 19, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Your argument is very subjective and the biased and your reasoning is flawed. First of all, to claim that "in captivity, there is no evolution occurring" is an equivocation and a lie and I am surprised that an atheist would know so little about evolution. Evolution is always occurring, even if you isolated a distinct population of animals over time they would eventually begin to mutate and change. This is true no matter where the animal is being held and there is no way to stop it from happening. Artificial selection is not defined as simply "breeding animals in captivity." Artificial selection is the science of selectively breeding for certain traits, better traits, or combinations of traits. Instead of nature deciding what traits get to be passed on (natural selection) humans decide what traits get to be passed on( artificial selection.) The only real difference between artificial selection and natural selection is that in the wild animals that have mutations that are detrimental to, or do not aid in, their survival, die off. So nature dictates what traits get to be passed on and the direction in which animals evolve and morph genetically and physiologically. As where in captivity humans decide which animals get to breed and which traits get to be passed on based on what we want out of that animal. Is it really relevant whether or not an ice age causes animals to change or a human does ? I think not, and since the natural habitats of most snakes are being depleted and destroyed at a rapid rate, and that there are now some species of snake such as Crotalus durissus unicolor that are only found in captivity, I see no reason why breeders shouldn't breed snakes for traits that make them more marketable since captivity may be the last chance some of these animals have from keeping their names off of the extinction list. It makes plenty of sense that breeders breed snakes that are more docile and colorful since in captivity something like a ball python doesn't have to be the same color as a leaf to survive. If a genetically striped albino pied ball python gives people more incentive to go out and buy more ball pythons, breed more ball pythons, and take better care of their ball pythons (some of these snakes get treated better than I do) then evolving into a more docile aesthetically pleasing specimen is not only in a snakes interest but has become part of its evolution as well. The natural time line would go something like this: humans evolved intelligence, left a state of nature and entered into a state of society, began to keep animals in captivity, and then animals began evolving to live in captivity. Living in a state of captivity or society as opposed to a state of nature has many advantages as well. However, Bickering about whether or not it is ethical for an animal to change by out crossing or mutating is ridiculous, and if you can get a more desirable trait by out crossing there is literally no reason not to since you cannot stop a population of animals from mutating and developing new traits to begin with. Just breeding a population of animals in captivity with no aim is not artificial selection, in fact it's not selection at all, it's just negligence, and by choosing to not nurture, aid, and direct the development of a population you are playing God because you are consciously choosing to stunt, retard, and impede the development of the said population; which actually sounds more like playing Satan to me, but then again you did say you were an atheist correct ? So I am sure you find the idea of playing Satan very appealing.
Secondly, if you bred a hybrid population of snakes, and that population had all of the traits that you wanted and thus became a breed that only you produced, it would be easy to continue producing a hybrid venom that may be useful to science since all you would have to do is continuing milking and breeding the population of snakes that you have. Seems kind of like common sense. In an article by science daily entitled, "Snake Venom As Therapeutic Treatment Of Cancer" (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070415133122.htm) illustrates my point exactly. If rattle snake venom has cancer fighting properties who is to say that different strains of this venom from hybrid snakes would not enhance of benefit those properties. In addition the scientific benefits of hybridization may not just come from the venom snakes produce, there could be other benefits as well that stem for their general anatomy and physiology. That might be immune to certain viruses or disease and this may have a wide range of implications for humans or they may just have unique features that could have a wide range of implications for humans. There could be other more practical benefits as well. Who is to say hybrid rattle snakes wouldn't produce longer lasting better feeling boots ?
Thirdly there are plenty of hybrids that have been documented to occur naturally in the wild: the grizzly polar bear hybrid, the guinea fowl x peafowl hybrid (which is actually an example of an interfamilial hybrid which is the crossing of two different families as opposed to the crossing of a genera, intergeneric, genus, interspecific, subspecies, intra-specific, or even a different order, interordinal), the spotted owl hybrid , and the naturally-occurring hybrid porpoise. In addition natural hybrids may have major advantages over their "pure" counterparts. One article entitled, "Hybrids May Thrive Where Parents Fear to Tread" states, "some combinations might enable hybrids to adapt to conditions in which neither parent may fare as well. Several such examples are now known from nature. Furthermore, DNA analysis is now allowing biologists to better decipher the histories of species and to detect past hybridization events that have contributed new genes and capabilities to various kinds of organisms including, it now appears, ourselves" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/science/14creatures.html). I addition to the benefits of natural hybridization selective breeding of domestic animals such as dogs and cats have given us excellent breeds of animals and I see no reason why we should not do the same with snakes. The Doberman is a cross between many different k-9's, and it is in the top 10 breeds of dogs. Why shouldn't we do the same with snakes ? And again I have to ask, why are you against evolution ? What I have laid out here isn't just my "misguided idea's about evolution" it is literally the text book definition and science of evolution that you would get from a college class. Believe me, I know, I have a masters degree in biology.
|
| |
|
RE: Come on guys(little help here)
|
Reply
|
|
by CHRIS on September 19, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Dexter I appreciate your opinion, but in all reality by trying to change what God has created is foolish ,can we improve on his work. I dont think so. Almost every thing man touches we destroy.Evoloution will happen at its own pace.If we feel there is some magic cure out there derived from genetic alteration,how many species should be sacrificed tell we say enough is enough? Also C.D.Unicolor still exsists in the wild.And to acheive a better pair of boots,sounds like a very poor argument ,dont you think really? And the ideal of a Masters or for that matter a P.H.D. makeing someone qualified as an athority is a weak argument. Let nature be the way God created it,and protect it for what it is,we cant improve it. Chris
|
| |
|
RE: Come on guys(little help here)
|
Reply
|
|
by AquaHerp on September 19, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
So, you are a degreed zoologist? If so, where in the hell did you get your degree? Your hybrid theory is at best laughable.
There is no real research value in hybrid animals. None. That was undoubtedly the most ridiculous and amateur series of horse shit that I have read in days.
Where do these people come from?
DH
|
| |
|
RE: Come on guys(little help here)
|
Reply
|
|
by AquaHerp on September 19, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Also....you have absolutely no idea of venom and how it is applied in biomedical research. The VENOM of a snakes is basically worthless bio medically as a whole. Venom contains hundreds, possibly thousands of molecules each acting in its own way. Researchers look at them individually as to how they might be applied to a drug. The rest of the venom is not even in the variable. Hybridizing two snakes would have absolutely no value whatsoever to biomedical studies. As a matter of fact, since we look at these venoms from known localities, a hybrid captive snake would be less than worthless to science. A hybrid is not going to create a new protein. The offspring will have venom traits of both parents. We have known this for many years.
I was amused at your attempt to go at your opinion from a "professional zoologist" standpoint. However, your information shows that you have no real background in this realm whatsoever. Now, if you would have said "this is my opinion and this is my angle" perhaps it might have gone over better. But to bash others and not even know your subject matter was a poor direction to jump.
DH
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to this topic.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Check our help page for help using
, or send questions, comments, or suggestions to the
Manager.
|
