# Question related to Testudinidae Domesticus



## Terry Allan Hall (Dec 2, 2010)

As most know, there are a lot of "mutant-colored" snakes in the pet trade, snakes bred for specific coloring, corn-snakes being just one example.







became 



















After seeing maggie3fan's hermanni/boettgeri X, my daughter and I are thinking that we'd like to breed some "High Colored" Hermann's (breeding for the best, most vivid shell/skin coloration). 

Obviously, the range of colors will be nowhere nearly as dramatic as in the cornsnake's case, but I'm thinking strong blacks contrasting to strong golds

Would this idea be offensive to anybody? 

maggie3fan mentioned that the breeder had her promise to never allow this animal to reproduce, and, of course, it would be absolutely unethical to sell the offspring as pure hermanni hermanni or hermanni boettgeri, but I have in mind to be VERY upfront about the tort's ancestry, putting all details in writing, along with it's pedigree, much as color-phases in cornsnakes, pythons, boas, etc. are done.

Opinions?


----------



## Az tortoise compound (Dec 2, 2010)

I'll be the first to take the leap....I see nothing wrong with it as long as the good genetics and heartiness is a priority in the program. A person would also have to be 100% up front about what they are doing and what they are selling. I imagine you would also need to keep it to a subspecies level. I mean no Redfoot Sulcata cross. We are in the infant stages of a Sunset hypo project with G.p.p. That's kinda simliar??

What do the rest of you think?


----------



## Terry Allan Hall (Dec 2, 2010)

Az tortoise compound said:


> I'll be the first to take the leap....I see nothing wrong with it as long as the good genetics and heartiness is a priority in the program. A person would also have to be 100% up front about what they are doing and what they are selling. I imagine you would also need to keep it to a subspecies level. I mean no Redfoot Sulcata cross. We are in the infant stages of a Sunset hypo project with G.p.p. That's kinda simliar??
> 
> What do the rest of you think?



Agree particularily about keeping it to a subspecies level...I recently was given a cornsnake/pinesnake X and can't imagine what the thinking was behind that project...nice enough snake, but I'm fairly certain that it'll be a "mule" (generally, but not always, mules are sterile) when it grows to breeding size...and if not, where I'd even find another cornsnake/pinesnake X that was the opposite gender AND viable...seems like a dead-end to me.

Besides, other than other Testudinae, can any other tortoise species mate successfully w/ a Hermann's?


----------



## egyptiandan (Dec 2, 2010)

That was me that gave the Hermanns to Maggie, but I wasn't the breeder. I was the one who purchased it from the breeder that claimed it was a pure Testudo hermanni hermanni. But as it grew, things just weren't right and I found out from a friend, that she had (she sold them not long ago) a group of females and a single male. Well her male died and instead of finding a male _T.h.hermanni_ (which are out there) she added a male _T.h.boettgeri_ to the group and still sold them as _T.h.hermanni_. I didn't pay what a pure one should have gone for, so was glad of that.  but should have thrown up flags to me.  oh well though 
It's to easy for someone to sell something as something it's not. Even if you said up front that it was a cross (it would be a cross and not a hybrid because it was between subspecies and not species) the person buying it could turn around and sell it to someone else as a pure _T.h.hermanni_. You would probably never know that this happened. 
I don't see anything wrong with producing colors within a species or subspecies, but I can't say that I would ever knowingly breed together different subspecies just to get a different color. 
The cornsnakes are all the same subspecies, so the are color phases and nothing more tha phases. The same with breeding lighter colored Leopard tortoises. They are all the same subspecies, just a different color.
I'm sure there would be some other species that would be able to be bred by a Hermanns. If you can get Leopard/Sulcata hybrids and Redfoot/Radiated hybrids, than anything is possible.

Danny


----------



## Terry Allan Hall (Dec 2, 2010)

egyptiandan said:


> That was me that gave the Hermanns to Maggie, but I wasn't the breeder. I was the one who purchased it from the breeder that claimed it was a pure Testudo hermanni hermanni. But as it grew, things just weren't right and I found out from a friend, that she had (she sold them not long ago) a group of females and a single male. Well her male died and instead of finding a male _T.h.hermanni_ (which are out there) she added a male _T.h.boettgeri_ to the group and still sold them as _T.h.hermanni_. I didn't pay what a pure one should have gone for, so was glad of that.  but should have thrown up flags to me.  oh well though
> It's to easy for someone to sell something as something it's not. Even if you said up front that it was a cross (it would be a cross and not a hybrid because it was between subspecies and not species) the person buying it could turn around and sell it to someone else as a pure _T.h.hermanni_. You would probably never know that this happened.
> I don't see anything wrong with producing colors within a species or subspecies, but I can't say that I would ever knowingly breed together different subspecies just to get a different color.
> The cornsnakes are all the same subspecies, so the are color phases and nothing more tha phases. The same with breeding lighter colored Leopard tortoises. They are all the same subspecies, just a different color.
> ...



Actually, Danny, some of the cornsnake "morphs" came from breeding cornsnakes (Elaphe guttata guttata) with various other ratsnakes, such as Elaphe emoryi (Great Plains Ratsnake), Elaphe bairdii (Baird's Rat Snake), Elaphe lindheimerii (Texas Ratsnake), and Elaphe obsoleta (various ratsnakes, but particularily Yellow Ratsnakes)...and the breeding these "mutts" with other ratsnake "mutts" for specific colors/patterns, usually over multiple generations...

Nowdays, only some "cornsnakes" are 100% cornsnake.

http://www.cornsnakemorphgallery.com/

And, I understand what you're saying about unscrupulous breeders/dealers passing off "mutts" as either one or the other subspecies, but as slowly as torts reproduce, I can't see that being a practical issue to any alarming degree.

There'll always be breeders who carefully breed for "pure" stock.


----------



## Balboa (Dec 2, 2010)

As you can bet I'm all for it, although I am sympathetic to the concerns of others. If you hadn't done it I would have tried eventually, in so far as at least picking the prettiest parents I could find as a minimum within a subspecies if not crossing.

The crossing temptation is so very strong after seeing queenie, I mean wow, is it just a good picture or is she really about the prettiest Hermanni out there? Was it the cross that made her so pretty, or just a fluke?

Hopefully in the not to distant future I'll be in a position to participate in something like this, would be nice to have another line to "out-cross" with or whatever, eh Terry?


----------



## Terry Allan Hall (Dec 2, 2010)

Balboa said:


> As you can bet I'm all for it, although I am sympathetic to the concerns of others. If you hadn't done it I would have tried eventually, in so far as at least picking the prettiest parents I could find as a minimum within a subspecies if not crossing.
> 
> The crossing temptation is so very strong after seeing queenie, I mean wow, is it just a good picture or is she really about the prettiest Hermanni out there? Was it the cross that made her so pretty, or just a fluke?
> 
> *Hopefully in the not to distant future I'll be in a position to participate in something like this, would be nice to have another line to "out-cross" with or whatever, eh Terry?*



Absolutely! 

And, yeah, Queenie is a VERY pretty Hermann's, at that...makes me want to see more hermanni/boettgeri Xs, to see if she's just a gorgeous fluke or if all hermanni/boettgeri Xs are that colorful!


----------



## travisgn (Dec 4, 2010)

I still don't really see what the problem is at all. Taxonomy is a pretty imprecise science, anyway. Today's subspecies will be tomorrow's new species. Today's new species are tomorrow's subspecies. Or either one is tomorrow's "oops that's actually not a subspecies or a new species, it's just the original species." The motto of taxonomists is: always write in pencil.

Like all science, taxonomy is just a model for explaining the world around us, and has no other value. Using taxonomy to decide what is "right" or "wrong," especially concerning something as trivial as pet tortoises, seems rather absurd to me.


----------



## GBtortoises (Dec 6, 2010)

Much of it comes down to what subspecies you're considering. I for one would absolutely hate to see Western Hermann's, _Testudo hermanni hermanni_ interbred with the more common Eastern Hermanns, _T. h. boettgeri_ and the Dalmatian Hermann's, _T. h. hercegovinensis_. True Western Hermann's have been and still are much more rare in captivity. Interbreeding them with the more common and prolific Eastern subspecies will only dilute and destroy the Western race that is already in limited numbers in captivity. A good example is already in place: Easterns have been interbred with Dalmatians for decades and true, pure Dalmatians are not that easy to find nowadays. 
I do also agree that taxonomy is not an exact science. Descriptions change based on new discoveries, new theories and new researchers. But, in any case that I can think of, it does follow a path, it's not haphazard. Whatever "revelations" are made ultimately have to be accepted by the scientific community and the masses. 
But given the limited availability of some true species (and subspecies) in captivity I believe that breeding designer tortoises is poor excuse for human vanity. Just my opinion based on what I believe.


----------



## zzzdanz (Dec 6, 2010)

Well said GB..I agree 100%.......RF/Radiated cross (as Danny said)..why? I dont get why anyone would even think of doing that.Any pictures of 1 of these?


----------



## Terry Allan Hall (Dec 6, 2010)

GBtortoises said:


> Much of it comes down to what subspecies you're considering. I for one would absolutely hate to see Western Hermann's, _Testudo hermanni hermanni_ interbred with the more common Eastern Hermanns, _T. h. boettgeri_ and the Dalmatian Hermann's, _T. h. hercegovinensis_. True Western Hermann's have been and still are much more rare in captivity. Interbreeding them with the more common and prolific Eastern subspecies will only dilute and destroy the Western race that is already in limited numbers in captivity. A good example is already in place: Easterns have been interbred with Dalmatians for decades and true, pure Dalmatians are not that easy to find nowadays.
> I do also agree that taxonomy is not an exact science. Descriptions change based on new discoveries, new theories and new researchers. But, in any case that I can think of, it does follow a path, it's not haphazard. Whatever "revelations" are made ultimately have to be accepted by the scientific community and the masses.
> But given the limited availability of some true species (and subspecies) in captivity I believe that breeding designer tortoises is poor excuse for human vanity. Just my opinion based on what I believe.



Why can't there be both "pure-bred" Testudo hermanni hermanni and "Designer Tortoises" (great catch-term, btw, GB )?

Good folks like HermanniChris, of New Jersey - http://www.gardenstatetortoise.com/hermanniabout2.html (and several breeders over in Europe) will likely always be breeding the pure Western subspecies, and that's good, but there's room for diversity.

Obviously, and as previously stated, when distributing "Designer Tortoises"", ethical folks must be *very* clear about the bloodlines/origines, and those buying should be sure they know what they're buying.

Besides, all this remains theoretical, as thus far, the only _confirmed_ hermanni/boettgeri X I've yet seen is Queenie...I've been offered a couple of "maybe" hermanni/boettgeri Xs, but they look like pure boettgeri, and the beeder is very upfront that he really has no idea if they are Xs or not. 

So, I have no idea if a hemanni/boettgeri X is what I really want to use in the bloodline, to get that coloring or not...lots of research yet to do.


----------



## Madkins007 (Dec 6, 2010)

My thought would be that it is OK as long as a.) they are sold honestly, and b.) it does not damage the breeding of true bloodlines, as in Danny's example. 

I love taxonomy, and although it is imperfect, you could make a case that a big part of the purpose of it is to see what can mate with what with what outcome.

In an ideal situation, if A and B can mate freely with viable offspring, they are the same SPECIES. (If they can do this but have different colors, patterns, diets, or behaviors, they are SUBSPECIES.) Example- Three-toed Box Turtle _Terrepena carolina triungus_ mating with an Florida Box Turtle _T. carolina bauri_ should work, because they are both subspecies of Eastern Box Turtles _T. carolina_.

If A & B mate reasonably easily with relatively frequent offspring that are usually sterile, they are probably members of the same GENUS. Eastern Box Turtle _T. carolina_ x Ornate Box Turtle _T. ornata_ might work, but the offspring are probably sterile.

If A & B can physically mate, but rarely do and rarely produce offspring, and they are almost always sterile, they are probably the same FAMILY. Eastern Box Turtle _T. carolina_ and Wood Turtle _Glyptemys insculpta_ for example.

If A & B look sort of alike and are built sort of alike, but would have physical difficulties mating and no cases have ever been found, they may be the same ORDER. Galapagos Tortoises _Chelonoidis nigra_ and Eastern Box Turtles _T. carolina_ are both in the order of 'turtles' or chelonians (_Testudines_)

Etc., etc., etc.


----------



## Tom (Dec 6, 2010)

I vote for keeping all species and subspecies separate. I'd even like to keep torts from various localities separate, if it were possible.Ever notice the "different" looking "races" of sulcatas? I'd sure like to know where in the range they all came from. I think now they are pretty well mixed up, but I still see traits of a few types.

Things are a bit of mess with our captive stock and with the restrictions and outright bans on importing new, KNOWN, blood it seems like a worthwhile effort to maintain the captive stock as purely as possible. For decades redfoots from all over their range have been thrown together and mixed. There are only a handful of breeders out there who are working with TRUE South African leopards that are actually from SA, but there are lots of mutt breeders.

I'm don't mind somebody breeding for color, but I think think it would serve the species, and us, best if we didn't mix them, even on a sub-specific level. We have a similar situation with the exotic roach colonies in this country. No new ones are coming in. Probably ever. If we fail to maintain what we've got right now, it will be lost from culture for ever. I've got one species that only two or thee guys have in the whole country. I've breeding the heck out of them and giving them to anyone who will take them in an effort to spread them out and keep them in culture. I started with only 7 and for several months it seemed very uncertain whether they would propagate or not. Now they are doing well, but it was very iffy for a while. What takes weeks or months to work out in roaches takes DECADES to work out in tortoises. What we have in our pure species of captive tortoises is VERY PRECIOUS. I vote strongly to keep it that way.


----------



## GBtortoises (Dec 7, 2010)

Why can't there be both "pure-bred" Testudo hermanni hermanni and "Designer Tortoises" (great catch-term, btw, GB )?

How will you tell them apart as hatchlings? What if some unscrupulous breeder starts selling purebred Easterns as "Designer" Western/Dalmatian hybrids or Eastern/Western hybrids and asking much more money for them. In the case of Hermann's and most others, subspecies will readily interbreed if allowed to. Hatchlings of all three subspecies often look very much alike in their first few months of life.

Once captive hybridization of the subspecies becomes common how will you know when or if you're getting a purebred? Simply by the sellers word? Most breeders that I am aware of would tell the truth about their offspring. Many (not all) wholesalers, distributors and pet shops may not and in fact probably wouldn't care as long as they can name it whatever will bring the most money for the animal. Case in point the current _Testudo marginata wessingeri{/i} for sale on Kingsnake and other sites. I'm not implying that the seller is knowing lying about what he is selling. He may have been misled about the tortoises himself. My point being that it comes down to relying on the the word of the seller when you'e buying a tortoise (or anything). You may be very knowledgable about the certain species (or subspecies) that you're buying. But that knowledge will be almost useless once subspecies become purposely interbred to produce characteristics of both parents. There will no longer be a defined Western Hermann's, Eastern Hermann's or Dalmatian Hermann's in captivity. There will be no longer be a defined Northern Mediterranean Ibera Greek, Middle Eastern Greeks or North African Greeks. They will eventually all become just Greeks. What about when someone decides to start purposely crossbreeding Ibera with Marginateds and Hermann's with Russians (which has already happened in the past)? Do we then attempt to crossbreed Redfoots and Dessert tortoises? Maybe Sulcata and Pancakes, they'd probably look cool. How about a Star tortoise and a Leopard tortoise just because some people might like the look? At some point the original characteristics that defined the species (or subspecies) will be rare or even non-existant. 

You're correct, people like Chris (HermanniChris), a good friend of mine, is breeding purebred Western Hermann's and even keeps the geographic populations seperate. I do the same with all of my Testudo species as much as possible based on geographic research that I do on them. I definitely do not keep the different species (or subspecies) housed together. But what happens to them after we sell them? Well, at the moment, people purchase them for what they are, not for what they want to create. People purchase Eastern Hermann's from me because they want Eastern Hermann's, Dalmatians because they want Dalmatians, Ibera because they want Ibera and so on. Not because they want an Eastern Hermann's that they can in future breed with a Western Hermann's or a Russian tortoise to create Frankentortoise.

I'm am very much against allowing the creation of designer tortoises for the sake of human vanity. Aren't we greeding enough already? Haven't we done enough damage to wildlife on this planet? Tortoises and turtles have been my passion and consumed a very large part of my life for over 30 years now. A major part of that attraction has always been and will continue to be the unique characteristics and qualities that each species exhibits. I will always adimately be against intentional hybridization and crossbreeding of tortoise and turtle species unless there is a bonafide reason to do so. Human vanity isn't reason enough for me to justify it._


----------



## Terry Allan Hall (Dec 7, 2010)

GBtortoises said:


> Why can't there be both "pure-bred" Testudo hermanni hermanni and "Designer Tortoises" (great catch-term, btw, GB )?
> 
> How will you tell them apart as hatchlings? What if some unscrupulous breeder starts selling purebred Easterns as "Designer" Western/Dalmatian hybrids or Eastern/Western hybrids and asking much more money for them. In the case of Hermann's and most others, subspecies will readily interbreed if allowed to. Hatchlings of all three subspecies often look very much alike in their first few months of life.
> 
> ...


_

A few questions:

(A) Why do you assume "human vanity" as being the only potential reason for such a project?

(B) Why do you assume the worst/most corrupt motivation on the part of breeders?

(C ) Why do you think there's enough monetary potential, in hobby breeding, to motivate "tortoise identity scams"?_


----------



## Tom (Dec 7, 2010)

I wholeheartedly agree with GB above. I don't know Testudo species, other than on a very basic level, but I CAN tell you that what he lists as the potential problems with inter-breeding subspecies or full species, is exactly what IS going on with leopards. So many people get cheated (intentionally or not) because the mix they are buying has some characteristics of a Gpp, even though it is a hybrid. The two leopard subspecies are both wonderful torts, but very different in their size, personality and housing requirements. When they are mixed, you just don't know what you have or how to house it.

Please keep them separate and preserve what we have. If you don't see the wisdom of it now, consider that you might see it down the road...


----------



## travisgn (Dec 7, 2010)

> There will be no longer be a defined Northern Mediterranean Ibera Greek, Middle Eastern Greeks or North African Greeks. They will eventually all become just Greeks.



They already _are_ all Greeks. The subspecies classification has no scientific value, only practical value. It only exists because we like to classify things down to the narrowest possible point to fulfill some desire for an ordered, understandable universe.



> What about when someone decides to start purposely crossbreeding Ibera with Marginateds and Hermann's with Russians (which has already happened in the past)? Do we then attempt to crossbreed Redfoots and Dessert tortoises? Maybe Sulcata and Pancakes, they'd probably look cool. How about a Star tortoise and a Leopard tortoise just because some people might like the look? At some point the original characteristics that defined the species (or subspecies) will be rare or even non-existant.



It isn't fair to extend the argument to crossing different species. Those of us who are in favor of crossing subspecies aren't necessarily in favor of crosses between species. Crosses between species are likely to produce, if anything, offspring that are not healthy or have a shortened lifespan and would have a poor quality of life. Crosses between subspecies, however, will never have that problem. They will be perfectly healthy tortoises that many people would love to care for.


----------



## Livingstone (Dec 7, 2010)

Tom said:


> I vote for keeping all species and subspecies separate. I'd even like to keep torts from various localities separate, if it were possible.Ever notice the "different" looking "races" of sulcatas? I'd sure like to know where in the range they all came from. I think now they are pretty well mixed up, but I still see traits of a few types.
> 
> Things are a bit of mess with our captive stock and with the restrictions and outright bans on importing new, KNOWN, blood it seems like a worthwhile effort to maintain the captive stock as purely as possible. For decades redfoots from all over their range have been thrown together and mixed. There are only a handful of breeders out there who are working with TRUE South African leopards that are actually from SA, but there are lots of mutt breeders.
> 
> I'm don't mind somebody breeding for color, but I think think it would serve the species, and us, best if we didn't mix them, even on a sub-specific level. We have a similar situation with the exotic roach colonies in this country. No new ones are coming in. Probably ever. If we fail to maintain what we've got right now, it will be lost from culture for ever. I've got one species that only two or thee guys have in the whole country. I've breeding the heck out of them and giving them to anyone who will take them in an effort to spread them out and keep them in culture. I started with only 7 and for several months it seemed very uncertain whether they would propagate or not. Now they are doing well, but it was very iffy for a while. What takes weeks or months to work out in roaches takes DECADES to work out in tortoises. What we have in our pure species of captive tortoises is VERY PRECIOUS. I vote strongly to keep it that way.



I agree with Tom. If they wouldn't breed in the wild, then people should not be stepping in. You need to appreciate the biodiversity nature provides, not look for ways to blur and change it. It doesn't matter how many people do it.


----------



## travisgn (Dec 8, 2010)

> You need to appreciate the biodiversity nature provides, not look for ways to blur and change it.



That's a fine position, but I feel like if that is your position, you have to apply it to everything. Stop experimenting with bacterial strains that can produce life saving treatments. Don't look forward to a revolution in gene therapy in the future that utilizes viral vectors (that one's debatable because viruses are not considered alive by some, though they are by me). Obviously genetic engineering is out, so no trees that can clean the air and the soil 100x more efficiently than nature ever could or in ways that nature is not capable of, or crops that have a yield 10x higher than they did 50 years ago. I hope neither you or your loved ones suffer from the very common disease known as diabetes, since the insulin used to treat it is secreted by genetically engineered bacteria.

If your position only applies to tortoises, then it is a sham. Either it is acceptable to alter nature or it isn't.


----------



## Tom (Dec 8, 2010)

You don't see a difference between crossing pet tortoise species, or subspecies, for aesthetic or novelty reasons and "developing" bacterial strains to ease human suffering and prolong human life?

That's a really big stretch and I'm not on board with that.

Our torts and other reptiles are in grave danger all around the globe. It is us, the captive breeding public, that will save them or not. I'd rather have distinct species and subspecies when my daughter's grandchildren are around than a bunch of homogenous, man-made mutts.

I look forward to a time when the average tortoise keeper has a reasonably sized herd of whatever species interests them, in large naturalistic enclosures, and propagation is the main goal instead of the pure "entertainment" of having a single pet. I say, if you are going to have one, why not have a two or three and put some babies of the species you love back into the pet trade.


----------



## onarock (Dec 8, 2010)

SAY NO TO GMO. I say no to all of it. Whe are messing with stuff that should be left alone. Whats to say that t.domesticus doesnt get out and start reproducing with native species. Also, a problem with changing/altering genetic code is that some people feel that they now "OWN" those genes. Its like the devil of all corps. Monsanto. They are changing genetics and introducing bacteria and pests the world over that only they can control. They perpetuate their gmo corn, soy whatever. They want to own food, all food and want you to have to go to them for every seed you want to grow. I say leave well enough alone. If you want to keep tortoises keep ones that fit your area or ones that present a challenge that you are willing to take on.


----------



## Livingstone (Dec 8, 2010)

travisgn said:


> > You need to appreciate the biodiversity nature provides, not look for ways to blur and change it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Its not acceptable! And using examples of solutions obtained by altering nature is a sham. Ask yourself why we had to create bacteria to secrete insulin? Diabetes wasnt a problem 100 years ago. It came about because we keep altering our environment. So the cycle is full circle. 

We have to continue to alter nature because of the unhealthy world we have created. That can be your only arguement. 

Why dont you go and get a degree in genetic engineering before you start cross breeding tortoises for a "pretty" shell pattern. That way you can at least do something beneficial while your screwing with nature.

Oh, and Right On tom.


----------



## Az tortoise compound (Dec 8, 2010)

I can appreciate the "don't play god" stance but....we are talking about the subspecies level not making hybrids between species or a sea turtleXsulcata hybrid

Think about this......

How many "Russian" breeders are aware of the subspecies and breed for purity?
based on the russians being from different populations (geographically)
How many possible "subspecies" of Sulcata make up today's hatchlings?
Who can tell me with 100% confidence where a particular leopard tort came from?
There are arguments that there are no subspecies of leo but now we are upset because they are "crossing"?? 
How many sub species of Greek are there with overlapping territories? Crosses happen in nature as well don't they?

It just seems like this is getting a little over exaggerated.


----------



## Tom (Dec 8, 2010)

I know where my leopards came from and the breeder knows where his came from too. I mean he knows exactly where. The importer was a good friend of his and the exporter was a good friend of the importer. It was a real "bro" deal. And the arguments that they are not a subspecies are ludicrous to me. I've kept both and they might as well be different species. I think those that argue they are the same have been exposed to a lot of the mixed ones. They are just nothing alike. Not in appearance, shape or color. Not in appetite. Not in behavior or personality. I've seen pp in the wild and lots of pb here in captivity and they are just totally different.

As far as the argument that russians and sulcatas are already messed up... well, that may be true, and it saddens me greatly to see such a mistake, but it certainly doesn't mean that we should just go ahead and mess up the ones that are still pure, now that we know better.

For me this has nothing to do with "playing god" it has to do with preserving something very precious and irreplaceable.


----------



## Az tortoise compound (Dec 8, 2010)

Ha Ha! I knew I would strike a nerve with the leopard comment!

I think it's kind of like dogs......Different breeding for different purposes (and appearances) has been very beneficial even as a single pet (entertainment value) or a working animal.
We have wolves, coyotes, dingos, poodles, pugs etc.. There is a place in this world for each don't you think?

I can't say it's WRONG for reptiles but acceptable for mammals. It's all about common sense and responsibility.


For the record...
I agree S.p.p.(Gpp) and S.p.b.(Gpb) are sub-species, though not quite as different from one another as some think (my opinion)


----------



## Tom (Dec 8, 2010)

Mick you make me laugh... with your nerve striking, you know? You're a good guy.

Dog breeds are all the same species. They are selectively bred for certain traits. And BTW, most of them are an absolute mess and only a shadow of the greatness that their breed once was. This is why I'm only interested in the true working breeds of dogs anymore anymore. Don't even get me started on "show" dogs. Who cares what they look like? Are they structurally sound? Can they work and do what they were bred to do? That's what should matter. 

Wolves and coyotes are totally different species, so I don't see how this helps your point, and I'm totally against mixing wolves, dogs and coyotes too! I've seen some really bad stuff with wolf/dog hybrids.

I've got no problem with anyone wanting to breed WITHIN a species or distinct subspecies for various traits. I'm just opposed to mixing them.


----------



## Balboa (Dec 8, 2010)

WOW

This is really striking nerves all across the board.
We go from wanting to breed a line of perfect pet tortoises (ie domesticating tortoises, as has been done with dogs, cats, rats, rabbits, horses, cows, chickens, and on and on) to the ethics of deliberate genetic manipulation at the microscopic level.

Fact: Dogs were bred from wolves, without advanced knowledge of genetics, labs and microscopes.

MHO: Dogs are FAR inferior to the parent stock, largely due to irresponsible breeding over the millenia in persuit of man's vanity. I really feel sorry for some breeds and the mockery of their forebears they've become. To me the problem is largely due to over "sub-species" creation. How many distinct breeds do we need? We can't support this many different "pure" breeds of dogs and maintain enough genetic diversity.

-This is of course valid argument by some against the creation of a "designer" tortoise in the first place. The opinions seem so strong that they actually swing the pendulum all the way around again.

I applaud you all for trying your best to maintain regionalistic differences. I just beg you to be realistic in your endeavor.

as an example
"look, this species of greek, from some tiny forest in the middle of who-knows-where, has a brown scale, where all others have green, its special, it must be maintained!" 

no matter that perhaps only 1 male and 1 female of said sub-species exist in the U.S. , so all progeny of this line will have to be inbred with each other, and not allowed to outcross.

Rather extreme, but I hope it illustrates my point. Tom's two subspecies of leopards is likely a reasonable goal to maintain. 20 different forms of greek seems tough.


The whole reason this crazy notion popped in my head, is I'm passionate about what I view as the abusive import and treatment of russians and even more so redfoots in the name of american vanity. (at least russians seem a better fit to me for most american homes than redfoots). Even when a redfoot survives the travel across borders, to distributors, to pet store floors and into a home, it stands little chance of surviving the inadequate care it will most likely receive, as the buyers have no real concept of what they've purchased.

Maybe it was a crazy notion, but I've always found its better to offer the child a "better" alternative, than to deny them outright.


----------



## Livingstone (Dec 9, 2010)

Balboa said:


> Maybe it was a crazy notion, but I've always found its better to offer the child a "better" alternative, than to deny them outright.



Forgive me for cutting down your post. It seemed that sentence was the crux of your arguement, which now seems to be shifting from "make a tortoise with aethetic beauty" to "make a tortoise that can hold up to a child". Both of which are bad. Tortoises are not pets for children, if you want proof read the litany of "sick" posts in the sulcata section. Raising healthy tortoises is a challenge, a challenge that requires dedication and research, not the meddling of breeders eager to make an animal that can survive a childs care. 

The idea that giving an animal to a child will teach anything is laughable, its a stupid delusion of parents that dont have time to teach the child themselves, rather plant the child in front of the TV if thats your answer.


----------



## Balboa (Dec 9, 2010)

Livingstone said:


> Balboa said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe it was a crazy notion, but I've always found its better to offer the child a "better" alternative, than to deny them outright.
> ...



That's what I get for being too general again.

The American public is the child in my analogy. They are naiive, impulsive and insatiable. They seldom look deeply into anything and only take things at face value.

The concept is a tortoise that actually has a chance of surviving a decent amount of time without extraordinary measures of husbandry, something the redfoot IS NOT.

I know from your other posts you're a smart one Livingstone. I'm rather surprised that you didn't see that.


----------



## Terry Allan Hall (Dec 9, 2010)

Livingstone said:


> Balboa said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe it was a crazy notion, but I've always found its better to offer the child a "better" alternative, than to deny them outright.
> ...



*And, actually, it was my initial post about, as you phrase it, "making a tortoise with aethetic beauty".

Both schools of thought (breeding a better pet vs. keep them as pure as if it were 10,000 BC) are equally valid and can peacefully co-exist.*


----------



## travisgn (Dec 10, 2010)

> You don't see a difference between crossing pet tortoise species, or subspecies, for aesthetic or novelty reasons and "developing" bacterial strains to ease human suffering and prolong human life?
> 
> That's a really big stretch and I'm not on board with that.



There is indeed a big difference, I just don't believe in compartmentalizing ethics. Ethics need to be broad to have any meaning. If you pick and choose what is right and wrong, you aren't really deciding on a code of ethics, you are just choosing what is convenient or most appealing in each situation. For me, on top of the list is that no one should cause suffering of another human being. Secondly, that no one should cause suffering of another living animal. Altering nature must be dealt with in one sweeping decision. Mine is that it is okay to alter it, as long as it doesn't cause suffering, since those considerations are above it.



> Its not acceptable! And using examples of solutions obtained by altering nature is a sham. Ask yourself why we had to create bacteria to secrete insulin? Diabetes wasnt a problem 100 years ago. It came about because we keep altering our environment. So the cycle is full circle.



Incorrect. Type I Diabetes is an auto-immune condition that has likely always existed and only been diagnosed as medicine has improved. Type II Diabetes still has nothing to do with the environment, though it does have to do with choice of diet. Besides, by my code of ethics, human suffering, no matter the cause, outweighs _any_ other consideration.



> We have to continue to alter nature because of the unhealthy world we have created. That can be your only arguement.



That isn't how ethics works. Altering nature didn't become ethically acceptable because it needed to be altered to fix problems. The ethical consideration comes first. It just so happens that we are now capable of altering nature to fix some of the problems that certain humans have helped to create, knowingly or unknowingly.

Not to mention that "nature" isn't some monolithic entity that is separate from humans. We are part of nature. I don't even like to use the word "nature" because it has too many bothersome connotations, but it is difficult not to use it. The idea that nature is even definable, or that it is somehow superior to anything "unnatural" (whatever that means) is considered in philosophy to be a logical fallacy. It's called the naturalistic fallacy, or appeal-to-nature fallacy. It isn't supported by a shred of logic or reason.

I just wanted to add a couple things that aren't part of the actual discussion.

1) This is the best thread that I have yet been part of here. Some actual debate, woohoo!

2) I know that sometimes my debating style comes off as a bit condescending or unyielding. People tell me this all the time. For the record, once I choose a side, I will fight for that side to the bitter end. I like to be direct and unwavering in my approach. That said, I do enjoy reading and hearing differing opinions. I truly value what other people have to say and I try to give everything I hear careful consideration.

Best Regards to Everyone,
Travis


----------



## GBtortoises (Dec 11, 2010)

A few questions:

(A) Why do you assume "human vanity" as being the only potential reason for such a project?

(B) Why do you assume the worst/most corrupt motivation on the part of breeders?

(C ) Why do you think there's enough monetary potential, in hobby breeding, to motivate "tortoise identity scams

(A) What other purpose is there? Most popular (and some less popular) purebred species are already being bred in large numbers in captivity so it's not to fill that void. Except in the case of farm or utility animals to produce certain qualities that serve man's needs better what other purpose is there for hybridization of animals? Vanity.

(B) I'm not assuming that all breeders will become corrupt. Most breeders that do so for the love of the animals won't even consider hybrid breeding. Those that do so for the love of money will. Add dollar signs to this or most any similar situation and see what happens. Puppy mills weren't born out of the love of breeding dogs, they were born out of the love of breeding dogs for lots of quick money.

(C) Simply because there is. If one female lays 5-10 eggs per season (not per year, per season) and each offspring sells for an average of $100 each, which is around the current selling price for many species, that's a very significant profit for a much cheaper investment. Now artifically cycle that tortoise to go through anywhere from 2-3 cycles per year and you may be able to increase the numbe of eggs annually from 5-10 to 15-30 from one female. Multiply that times the number of females that a breeder might have of any one species, even is assuming a conservative number of six females, that translates to thousands of dollars annually from one small group. Nevermind the fact that a breeder that is solely in it for money is going to be continually adding more females in order to produce even more profit. "Hobby" breeding goes out the window when profit is to be made on a large scale. Proof of that is back in the early 90's when Sulcatas first became common in the U.S. Believe it or not before then they were rarely seen in captivity. A small handful of breeders managed to absolutely saturate the market with Sulcata hatchlings and kept on going until the prices went from $150 a hatchling down to $45 a hatchling in just a few short years. Which has also caused the species to become a pet shop staple, on many a craigslist ad and thousands have died in the hands of unknowledgeable keepers. This all happened because those breeders realized there was a profit to be made. As far as where the identity scam comes to play; that's obvious! Money to be gained often brings out the worst in some people. Many are going to have no problem misrepresenting what they're selling. Did that not just recently happen to you?


----------



## Terry Allan Hall (Dec 11, 2010)

GBtortoises said:


> A few questions:
> 
> (A) Why do you assume "human vanity" as being the only potential reason for such a project?
> 
> ...



The role of cynic really doesn't become you...still, you're certainly entitled to your *opinion*, and I hope that you can accept that your _*opinion*_ isn't the same as a fact..


----------



## Livingstone (Dec 11, 2010)

Terry Allan Hall said:


> Livingstone said:
> 
> 
> > Balboa said:
> ...



I was 8 years old when I got my first tortoise. An angulate tortoise (I grew up in South Africa). I am now 28 years old. The tortoise went back to the neighbor when my family and I emigrated to the US.

No I dont have any kids, Im not planning on it either. 

Im sorry you think me harsh, but I compliment your children. They are the exception not the rule.


----------



## GBtortoises (Dec 11, 2010)

"The role of cynic really doesn't become you...still, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, and I hope that you can accept that your opinion isn't the same as a fact.."

Terry, I'm not being cynical at all I'm relaying my point. I apologize if I've offended you, but you did ask the questions so you have to expect answers that you may not like, this is after all the "Debatable Topics" section. What I've stated isn't all just my opinion, some of it is actual fact that has already happened. 

If you're going to go fishing you have to expect someone to open up a can of worms sooner or later.


----------



## Terry Allan Hall (Dec 11, 2010)

quote='Livingstone' pid='195009' dateline='1292104773']


Terry Allan Hall said:


> Livingstone said:
> 
> 
> > Balboa said:
> ...



I was 8 years old when I got my first tortoise. An angulate tortoise (I grew up in South Africa). I am now 28 years old. The tortoise went back to the neighbor when my family and I emigrated to the US.

*Cool...then I'm sure you'll agree that some children (with a reasonable amount of parental supervision, of course) can, indeed, make responsible tortoise owners. *

No I dont have any kids, Im not planning on it either. 

*Said exactly the same thing when I was your age...to quote the late, great John Lennon "Life is what happens when you're busy making other plans." Truer words were never spoken! *

Im sorry you think me harsh, but I compliment your children. They are the exception not the rule.
*
Hopefully, responsible children aren't that rare...they just need to be nurtured, like any other precious crop. 

BTW, they nurture best when there's more face-time w/ their parents and less w/ the TV/video games/etc...so you're 100% right about that point.*[/quote]




GBtortoises said:


> "The role of cynic really doesn't become you...still, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, and I hope that you can accept that your opinion isn't the same as a fact.."
> 
> Terry, I'm not being cynical at all I'm relaying my point. I apologize if I've offended you, but you did ask the questions so you have to expect answers that you may not like, this is after all the "Debatable Topics" section. What I've stated isn't all just my opinion, some of it is actual fact that has already happened.
> 
> If you're going to go fishing you have to expect someone to open up a can of worms sooner or later.



*Not offended, GB...just noting that you seem to occ. miss that the words "opinions" and "facts" aren't always interchangable... 

Again, AZ's, Balboa's and my ideas in no way can (or ever will) negate your ideas...both are equally valid.

There's room for those of us wanting to create a better "pet tortoise", one that is better suited to domestication, and those of you wanting to maintain "species purity". 

As long as folks are breeding tortoises, pressure is lessening on wild-caught ones, and as long as we keep pointing out the various reasons why CBBs are the best choice, more and more educated consumers will demand them...hopefully, to the point where very few wild-caughts are offered in the pet-trade. (OTOH, once there's no onger a commercial value to them, in the pet-trade, the people who collect them have no motivation to allow them to live, which means more will end up in meat markets, used as road-fill or tourist crafts or killed as a nuisance to farmers... )*


----------

