# Cross-species breeding



## laramie (Aug 13, 2011)

Hey Guys,
Just something I was wondering about. Has anyone ever bred two torts from different breeds? Also, if you had lets say, a leo tort and a sulcata tort (one male and one female) of sexual maturity, would they mate or would they not?

Just questions in my mind,


----------



## dmmj (Aug 13, 2011)

*RE: Interracial Dating*

I believe there were some leo/sulctta hybrids at the reptile expo, they wanted a small fortune for them I believe. Most of us are purists, when it comes to hybrids.


----------



## coreyc (Aug 13, 2011)

*RE: Interracial Dating*

I know there is a member with some Lepacata's 1/2 leopard 1/2 Sulcata they look awesome


----------



## laramie (Aug 13, 2011)

*RE: Interracial Dating*



coreyc said:


> I know there is a member with some Lepacata's 1/2 leopard 1/2 Sulcata they look awesome



Yvonne, do you know which member that is?


----------



## ascott (Aug 13, 2011)

*RE: Interracial Dating*

weird


----------



## laramie (Aug 13, 2011)

*RE: Interracial Dating*



ascott said:


> weird


Yeah, it may be a weird question, but every journey begins with curiosity.


----------



## dmarcus (Aug 13, 2011)

*RE: Interracial Dating*

Here you go...

http://www.tortoiseforum.org/Thread-Leaping-Lepracutta#axzz1Uw8Z6cNl


----------



## ascott (Aug 13, 2011)

*RE: Interracial Dating*

No, no question to me is weird. To me it is simply weird, and unnatural to purposely cross breed tortoise/turtles, in my opinion 
Does not mean I lay any type of judgement, just not ideal in my opinion, but as most say, to each is their own


----------



## coreyc (Aug 13, 2011)

*RE: Interracial Dating*



laramie said:


> coreyc said:
> 
> 
> > I know there is a member with some Lepacata's 1/2 leopard 1/2 Sulcata they look awesome
> ...



I think it's N2TORTS


----------



## laramie (Aug 13, 2011)

*RE: Interracial Dating*



ascott said:


> No, no question to me is weird. To me it is simply weird, and unnatural to purposely cross breed tortoise/turtles, in my opinion
> Does not mean I lay any type of judgement, just not ideal in my opinion, but as most say, to each is their own


No worries ascott, I didn't take it as any judgement 




dmmj said:


> I believe there were some leo/sulctta hybrids at the reptile expo, they wanted a small fortune for them I believe. Most of us are purists, when it comes to hybrids.



Has anyone every crossbred any other kinds of torts?


----------



## Yvonne G (Aug 13, 2011)

*RE: Interracial Dating*

They would have to be close in species. I would imagine that the Mediterranean species might mix. The different type of stars might mix.

But, like David said up above...I'm a purist too, and I don't approve of it.

Some of the different box turtles interbreed where their territories overlap in the real world, and that makes it hard to know what kind of box turtle you're looking at. (I keep all my box turtle species separate)


----------



## GBtortoises (Aug 14, 2011)

*RE: Interracial Dating*

Maybe this thread should be more accurately entitled: "Inter species breeding".

Interracial dating is something totally different and as far as I know, only applies to Homo sapiens.


----------



## grogansilver (Aug 14, 2011)

*RE: Interracial Dating*

Come on is this even possible a large full grown Male Sulcata tortoise and a small female Leo tort is this possible? I don't thing she would survive the mating ritual!


----------



## Tom (Aug 14, 2011)

*RE: Interracial Dating*

Add me to the list of people who do NOT think this should be done. I don't think they should even be housed together, much less bred. Importation of sulcatas and leopards was banned many years ago. What we have right now is all there will ever be, as far as the genetic pool is concerned. We should be working to preserve what we have and improve upon it. Mixing species only dilutes and ruins our very precious resource.


----------



## grogansilver (Aug 14, 2011)

*RE: Interracial Dating*



GBtortoises said:


> Maybe this thread should be more accurately entitled: "Inter species breeding".
> 
> Interracial dating is something totally different and as far as I know, only applies to Homo sapiens.


 GB Even with Interracial dating Babies still can be made!!!


----------



## pandacakes (Aug 14, 2011)

*RE: Interracial Dating*



Tom said:


> Add me to the list of people who do NOT think this should be done. I don't think they should even be housed together, much less bred. Importation of sulcatas and leopards was banned many years ago. What we have right now is all there will ever be, as far as the genetic pool is concerned. We should be working to preserve what we have and improve upon it. Mixing species only dilutes and ruins our very precious resource.



I agree with Tom. (even though they look really cool!)


----------



## Sky2Mina (Aug 14, 2011)

*RE: Interracial Dating*

First I thought this topic would be in Off Topic Chit Chat. 

Personally I think cross-breeding is interesting. I'm still waiting to see full sized Leopard/Sulcatta mixes. I wonder what they will look like.


----------



## Baoh (Aug 14, 2011)

*RE: Interracial Dating*

I am fine with it with one exception. That exception is when we are talking about wild populations of threatened species or of tortoises that are meant to be introduced into the wild. However, if it's a captive-born animal that would only be contributing to pet animal numbers, I am fine with it, as these are your animals that were or were not going to be allowed to reproduce at your say-so anyway.

Testudo species have been interbred. Redfoot x Radiated and Sulcata x Leopard, too. Gopherus hybrids have also occurred.

There are a great many turtle examples that have naturally occurred, too.

I actually have another reason that would be a potential positive for both the pet trade and dumped/shelter animals as well as reducing load on wild caught demand, but this is not the place for that discussion. 



Sky2Mina said:


> I'm still waiting to see full sized Leopard/Sulcatta mixes. I wonder what they will look like.



I have been excited to see this, too. I had wanted some for a beneficial experiment and to have as pets, but it looks like that won't happen.


----------



## natsamjosh (Aug 14, 2011)

*RE: Interracial Dating*

I realize I'm probably in the minority, but taxonomy is simply a man-made, static construct, which, in many ways, is antithetical to evolution. Evolution is a continuum; taxonomy is a static view, and it's not even agreed upon what a species, much less a sub-species, is. Species and subspecies didn't evolve in isolation, quite the contrary. The idea of "natural intergrades" seems a bit backwards to me. In most cases that's an example of animals branching out and adapting from a common ancestor, not two separate species or subspecies "immorally" coming together and "interbreeding." And what happens when some group of scientists decides current taxonomy is incorrect and the change it? For example, recently the entire classification of mainland rainbow boas was changed. "Peruvian" and "Brazilian" rainbows are now considered on species rather than two distinct subspecies. So now what? Is it still "wrong" to breed Peruvians to Brazilians?

Bottom line for me is that mother nature doesn't give a **** about our taxonomic classifications. IMO, taxonomy is more about human ego and human satisfaction. Here's in interesting article:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110622115313.htm

It's all a natural part of evolution. Animals adapt and branch out, and sometimes they "branch in", so to speak. I have red hair and light skin. There is a theory that red hair and fair skin came from Neanderthals "interbreeding" with Homo sapiens. Now my wife has always accused me of being a cave man, but aside from that, should I consider myself possibly "polluted" or "impure?"


----------



## grogansilver (Aug 14, 2011)

*RE: Interracial Dating*



natsamjosh said:


> I realize I'm probably in the minority, but taxonomy is simply a man-made, static construct, which, in many ways, is antithetical to evolution. Evolution is a continuum; taxonomy is a static view, and it's not even agreed upon what a species, much less a sub-species, is. Species and subspecies didn't evolve in isolation, quite the contrary. The idea of "natural intergrades" seems a bit backwards to me. In most cases that's an example of animals branching out and adapting from a common ancestor, not two separate species or subspecies "immorally" coming together and "interbreeding." And what happens when some group of scientists decides current taxonomy is incorrect and the change it? For example, recently the entire classification of mainland rainbow boas was changed. "Peruvian" and "Brazilian" rainbows are now considered on species rather than two distinct subspecies. So now what? Is it still "wrong" to breed Peruvians to Brazilians?
> 
> Bottom line for me is that mother nature doesn't give a **** about our taxonomic classifications. IMO, taxonomy is more about human ego and human satisfaction. Here's in interesting article:
> 
> ...


----------



## Terry Allan Hall (Aug 14, 2011)

*RE: Interracial Dating*



laramie said:


> Hey Guys,
> Just something I was wondering about. Has anyone ever bred two torts from different breeds? Also, if you had lets say, a leo tort and a sulcata tort (one male and one female) of sexual maturity, would they mate or would they not?
> 
> Just questions in my mind,



Had a male Hermann's/Greek X for a short while...didn't need him for my breeding project and a friend's kid wanted him desperately, so he has become a well-spoiled b'day present. 

And the kid will likely become a Tortoiseforum.org member eventually.


----------



## N2TORTS (Aug 14, 2011)

*RE: Interracial Dating*



natsamjosh said:


> I realize I'm probably in the minority, but taxonomy is simply a man-made, static construct, which, in many ways, is antithetical to evolution. Evolution is a continuum; taxonomy is a static view, and it's not even agreed upon what a species, much less a sub-species, is. Species and subspecies didn't evolve in isolation, quite the contrary. The idea of "natural intergrades" seems a bit backwards to me. In most cases that's an example of animals branching out and adapting from a common ancestor, not two separate species or subspecies "immorally" coming together and "interbreeding." And what happens when some group of scientists decides current taxonomy is incorrect and the change it? For example, recently the entire classification of mainland rainbow boas was changed. "Peruvian" and "Brazilian" rainbows are now considered on species rather than two distinct subspecies. So now what? Is it still "wrong" to breed Peruvians to Brazilians?
> 
> Bottom line for me is that mother nature doesn't give a **** about our taxonomic classifications. IMO, taxonomy is more about human ego and human satisfaction. Here's in interesting article:
> 
> ...



Well My Friend your one smart minority cookie! 
Very well written and makes complete sense ......" two thumbs up" ! 

JD~


----------



## ascott (Aug 14, 2011)

*RE: Interracial Dating*

natsamjosh, problem I have with all that you hit on it....I was not referring to two tortoise who happen upon one another in the wild....I am referring to captive tortoise...a male tortoise is generally very aggressive when breeding--pretty much the norm---and the female, especially if outsized...and being confined by the human in the same space as the male with the intention/or lack of care or concern, has no natural choice ....this is my point. And wow, you sure do use some fun words, some of which are great for lectures and conference events, many that I have sat in on....however, nature vs captive are two totally different beasts....."in my opinion"

Once again, the "God" syndrome at is finest, as outlined by your awesome choice of words....


----------



## Baoh (Aug 15, 2011)

*RE: Interracial Dating*

Taxonomy is not static. It is expanded, contracted, and rearranged as new knowledge becomes available. Especially with phylogenetics. This is even admitted in sentences afterward in that attempt at a mutually exclusive argument. Something cannot be both entirely static and fluid simultaneously.


----------



## Tom (Aug 15, 2011)

*RE: Interracial Dating*

All the science and fancy words don't change the reality of the situation. And that is: We have distinct "types" (label them as you wish) available in captivity. Everyone can look at a sulcata and a leopard and tell you the difference. Interbreeding them dilutes this "purity". No matter how YOU intend the animal to be kept (pet or otherwise, bred or not), things will happen over the years and decades. If they do not exist, these "things" can not happen, accidentally or otherwise.


----------



## jaizei (Aug 15, 2011)

*RE: Interracial Dating*

I'm curious whether these hybrids would be fertile or sterile like some of the hybrids in other species.


----------



## natsamjosh (Aug 15, 2011)

*RE: Interracial Dating*



grogansilver said:


> I'm with you on this! I think he has it right people with this one! Hum I'm going to see if my Russians will Breed with my snapping turtle it will be "interesting" a new Breed of tortoise or turtle should be brought upon us tommorrow, ill have a new genetic name for them? I then can contribute to life as we know it of tortoises and turtles!



Wow, my expectations for a rational, logical response were low, but I guess not low enough.


----------



## natsamjosh (Aug 15, 2011)

*RE: Interracial Dating*



Baoh said:


> Taxonomy is not static. It is expanded, contracted, and rearranged as new knowledge becomes available. Especially with phylogenetics. This is even admitted in sentences afterward in that attempt at a mutually exclusive argument. Something cannot be both entirely static and fluid simultaneously.



It (taxonomy) is static in that it's a snapshot. And then it changes. Which is exactly my point. If it changes, then that destroys the concept of "purity", does it not? What is "purity" if the classifications keep changing? What I find interesting is so far not one "purist" has even attempted to address my specific example (of mainland Epicrates classifications) of what happens when the taxonomy changes. I got a few non-sequitur (fancy word for irrelevant) responses making fun of the "fancy" words I used and of "playing God" (whatever that means.)

Ironically, "purity" is a fancy but meaningless buzzword. Every individual animal is genetically different from the next. Humans are the ones arbitrarily constructing classifications, and we can't even agree on them. And then they keep changing. Why stop at sub-species? Why not sub-sub-species? Or sub-sub-sub-species?

And here's a question - if my son decides to date a black or Asian girl, should I object? Will they be polluting the gene pool if they have a child? Or are we humans special and the same rules don't apply?

Who exactly are the people "playing God" here???? 





N2TORTS said:


> Well My Friend your one smart minority cookie!
> Very well written and makes complete sense ......" two thumbs up" !
> 
> JD~



Thanks... I think.  With all the sarcastic responses and ad hominem (that's a "fancy" word for a personal attack for those that don't like "fancy" words,) I'm not sure what to think anymore. 



Tom said:


> All the science and fancy words don't change the reality of the situation. And that is: We have distinct "types" (label them as you wish) available in captivity. Everyone can look at a sulcata and a leopard and tell you the difference. Interbreeding them dilutes this "purity". No matter how YOU intend the animal to be kept (pet or otherwise, bred or not), things will happen over the years and decades. If they do not exist, these "things" can not happen, accidentally or otherwise.



What's with the stupid, irrelevant comments regarding the words I used? Somehow having a decent vocabulary is a negative and detracts form arguments????

Your argument is a circular or "preaching to the choir" argument. It's based on opinions with which I disagree. You can personally attack me all you want, but doing so doesn't change the reality that YOUR OPINION is no more valid than MINE. If people 1) take care of their animals and 2) honestly represent them, then imo, it's none of my business if and how they decide to breed their animals. 

Regarding your argument, I don't agree with that either. You would only buy a "pure" animal from someone you trust anyway. And it's not like everyone and his mother is hybridizing sulcatas and leopards anyway.


----------



## Yvonne G (Aug 15, 2011)

*RE: Interracial Dating*

Hi Ed:

I've been keeping a close eye on this thread because it seems to be pushing some buttons, however, I must take exception to the words you used in your last post. So far I haven't seen anyone "personally attack" you. And I hope I don't see that. We won't allow it. If you DO feel a personal attack, please PM me and show me where and I'll handle it.

Some people are uncomfortable when they read words they don't really see or hear every day, and there's a bit of bluster about it and maybe even making a bit of fun out of it. But I really don't think it was a personal attack.

You are a valued member here, and your opinion on the original topic is an interesting one.

I hope we all can control ourselves and don't carry this into the "..uh oh, someone's going to get banned" mode.


----------



## ascott (Aug 15, 2011)

*RE: Interracial Dating*

Yvonne is absolutely correct in saying we are not trying to "personally attack" anyone....really. When ever I post any comment to a thread I am truly just responding to the subject and I promise I am not into causing undo stress to any other member  Stress is bad....

As passionately as you stated your opinion, so has everyone else...I value each and every other forum members choice to their "own" opinion, isn't that what this forum is designed for? 

I believe I referenced your vocabulary choices as "fun words", so I hope you did not take that as a jab....truly, it was not. I love when a word pops up that I have not heard in awhile, or better yet...a new one 

Come on round back to the group and please don't feel like any one person, nor the group is personally attacking you.....please


----------



## Terry Allan Hall (Aug 15, 2011)

*RE: Interracial Dating*



jaizei said:


> I'm curious whether these hybrids would be fertile or sterile like some of the hybrids in other species.



An interesting question, actually...

I've got a few hybrid colubrid snakes and the ones closely related - for instance, a Corn snake/Emory's Ratsnake X - are usually viable (lays good eggs), while a Cornsnake/bullsnake hybrid I was given I'm assuming is sterile...in fact, until I actually saw one, I was skeptical that two such different snakes could reproduce together!

The Hermann's/Greek X I referred to in a previous post is probably viable, although I've never attempted breeding him, and his new owner has no intention of ever breeding him, either.

And, contrary to popular mythology, mules (horse/donkey crosses) aren't always sterile, either...there have been several instances of female mules having foals, although I've never heard of a male mule being fertile.


----------



## Tom (Aug 15, 2011)

*RE: Interracial Dating*

Wow Natsamjosh. I wasn't referring to you or anyone in particular. There was certainly no personal attack intended and there never has been, each time this topic comes up. I don't see how my reference to anyones advanced scientific vocabulary was stupid or irrelevant. I was alluding to the fact that "taxonomy" and a lot of what the "scientists" have to say is irrelevant and unimportant to me. On this point, I think we agree. You see the "old, outdated" taxonomic names in my signature line don't you? I'm really not that ignorant. I do know that the "scientists" have decided to change the "snapshot" to which you were referring. Their opinion doesn't carry that much weight with me. In MY opinion the "old" names were just fine and so I choose to continue to use them.

I agree with you that human classifications can sometimes be arbitrary. That is why I tried to explain my last point the way I did. Regardless of what some scientist calls my tortoises, the difference between my leopards and my sulcatas is obvious. If I breed leopard to leopard, I will get more leopards. If I breed sulcata to sulcata, I will get more sulcatas. I, for one, would like it to stay this way. If the existing captive gene pool gets all messed up and diluted with hybrids, this goal will become harder and harder to accomplish. Look at the state of redfoots and leopards right now. The only way I know how to get a pure South African Leopard, that shows all the characteristics that are known to be associated with that "type", is to get one directly from someone who has actual direct SA imports. I only know for sure about two guys in the whole country that fit that description. There may be more, but I don't know of them, or where they got their foundation stock. A friend of mine bred two SA Leopards and the baby shows ALL the right characteristics, but due to the circumstances of the leopard world, I will never be 100% certain that the baby is pure. We are hoping for more eggs this coming year and then we will see what the siblings show us, but... I think you get my point. Its a mess. I stand where I stand on this issue because I would really like to avoid this sort of "mess" in the future, wherever possible. Mixing species is most certainly a way to create more mess in my opinion.

Now about the question of human breeding. Come on... I know that YOU know that all humans are the same species. As far as I know, there is not any subspecies distinction either. Also, if I desire to find a mate of a particular human type, for the purpose of reproduction, I can still go find one and import one from anywhere in the world. I CANNOT go to South Africa and import some new tortoises of a particular "type". And THAT is my point. What we have here now is all there is. If we mess it up we cannot just go get some more and start over. This is it. We have one chance to collectively do it "right", or its gone forever.


----------



## Baoh (Aug 16, 2011)

*RE: Interracial Dating*



natsamjosh said:


> Baoh said:
> 
> 
> > Taxonomy is not static. It is expanded, contracted, and rearranged as new knowledge becomes available. Especially with phylogenetics. This is even admitted in sentences afterward in that attempt at a mutually exclusive argument. Something cannot be both entirely static and fluid simultaneously.
> ...



Exactly your point? Your post was contradictory when you claimed it was static yet changes.

I never said anything about "purity" or "playing God", so save that red herring for someone else because I never addressed either issue in my response. I also do not have a stake or care regarding who your son dates, which is another red herring as far as my response goes.

Your response to my response is more like a strawman than dealing with what I actually posted.


----------



## grogansilver (Aug 16, 2011)

*RE: Interracial Dating*



Baoh said:


> natsamjosh said:
> 
> 
> > Baoh said:
> ...


  Im which you man on this one!! my snapper tried to eat my Russians! that stuff Interracial Dating or breeding stuff Dont work!


----------



## Baoh (Aug 16, 2011)

*RE: Interracial Dating*



grogansilver said:


> Baoh said:
> 
> 
> > natsamjosh said:
> ...



I have no idea about you are attempting to refer to, but I suspect it has little relevance to what I have posted in this thread.


----------



## grogansilver (Aug 16, 2011)

*RE: Interracial Dating*



Baoh said:


> grogansilver said:
> 
> 
> > Baoh said:
> ...


Interracial Dating and Breeding!





Interracial Dating and Breeding!


----------



## dbsneed69 (Aug 16, 2011)

*RE: Interracial Dating*

I feel all smarticle and stuff after reading this. Just trying to lighten the mood. I'm in no way as educated as most of the people here. Admittedly, I would have to break open the dusty ol' dictionary in order understand a lot of the wording.

I believe that the pet trade will try to develope hybrids, as long as it can bring more money in.

I know in a lot of cases with dogs and cats, "purebred animals" seem to pass down genetic flaws. For instance, dalmations tend to have hearing problems. If there are turtles and torts with genetics issues, maybe it could help. 

I believe that both sides offer valid arguments. I agree with Tom's point of view. That being said, I am a realist and know that people are fascinated with animals that are different and weren't meant to be. Heck, reading this thread made me wonder what kind of super-tort an aldabra and galop would produce. 

I'm sure there is a place for each. You will always have "purists" and they will keep breeding wonderful examples. You will also have the "scientists" that want to push the genetic envelope. Who knows, maybe one day I can see my "Galop-abra." For now, I love my little sully and all his genetic glory.

Now, everyone take a deep breath and hug your turtle or tort and SMILE. I'm so glad that I found this forum!!!


----------



## grogansilver (Aug 16, 2011)

*RE: Interracial Dating*

 Yeah I agree, "coffee break" needed!
View attachment 10712
"give a hug"
View attachment 10715
and "lets all shake hands"
View attachment 10713
"no more Arguing!"


----------



## dbsneed69 (Aug 16, 2011)

*RE: Interracial Dating*

Love the pics grogansilver


----------



## grogansilver (Aug 16, 2011)

*RE: Interracial Dating*

And as far as Interracial Dating and breeding suggesting on here goes don't give my owner that lunatic any more ideas!!! That snapper almost eat me! Forget about the Breeding part of it. 
View attachment 10717


----------



## Neltharion (Aug 16, 2011)

*RE: Interracial Dating*

I see these types of debates about hybrids occur on the tropical fish boards. I also see essentially the same two arguments for or against. 

The argument against, "We should strive to maintain the integrity of each individual species, particularly for those species that are becoming scarce in the wild."

The arguments for, "Doesn't hybridization occur naturally in the wild anyway? Is there really anything wrong with creating new species? Don't we mix as humans?"

The general consensus on most of the tropical fish forums is that its acceptable to hyrbidize only if you're going to keep them for yourself and not give away hybrids or release them into the wild. 

I've also seen in clarified many times when the human example is thrown in: a caucasian man having children with a woman of african ancestry is not hybridization. The children are still pure Homo sapiens. Similarly breeding a Dachsund to a Jack Russell Terrier still produces a full blooded Canis lupus (cross breeding two different breeds of dog is not the same as hybridization of two different species of animal within the same Family or Genus). 

As for species integrity, one of the biggest arguments given in the tropical fish world are the various species of fish originating from Lake Victoria in Africa. Most of those fish are extinct or near extinct because the Nile Perch was introduced to the lake. Fish enthusiasts argue that the Lake Victoria cichlids should never be hybridized, since aquarists own the last remnant populations for most of these fish. I tend to agree with that. But for the guppies, mollies, swordtails, and other very common Central and South American cichlids; is some hybridization acceptable as long as those populations are contained? I tend to agree with that too.

In the case of turtles and tortoises, a similar argument can be made for several species. Either through habitat encroachment by man, overcollection for the food trade, or overcollection for the animal trade. Imagine if Ploughshares, Radiateds, or Spiders in captivity were used for interspecies breeding. If the offspring looked very similar to the adults, unscrupulous sellers could sell them to unknowing buyers as pure specimens and dilute the genes of the captive population. Someday, some of these species (the Ploughshare in particular), will likely only exist in captive populations. 

I've seen one retailer with a huge online presence selling Travancore/Elongated crosses for half the price that they sell pure Travancores. At least from the pics posted on their site, the crosses look the same as the pure. For an animal with a IUCN Vulnerable status, and relative scarcity in the United States, imagine someone buying these hybrids, doubling their price and selling them as pure just for the sake of cashing in.


----------



## Terry Allan Hall (Aug 18, 2011)

*RE: Interracial Dating*

I'm just waiting for someone to develope a "Toy Sulcata", that only grows to about 20#...


----------



## dmarcus (Aug 18, 2011)

*RE: Interracial Dating*



Terry Allan Hall said:


> I'm just waiting for someone to develope a "Toy Sulcata", that only grows to about 20#...



Toy Sulcata....Guess it will be easier to carry in a shoulder bag like celebs do with toy dogs...


----------



## Terry Allan Hall (Aug 18, 2011)

*RE: Interracial Dating*



dalano73 said:


> Terry Allan Hall said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just waiting for someone to develope a "Toy Sulcata", that only grows to about 20#...
> ...



Exactly...and as soon as Paris Hilton gets one, the developers get REALLY, REALLY rich!


----------



## Kristina (Aug 19, 2011)

*RE: Interracial Dating*

Comparing tortoises to humans is completely irrelevant, IMHO. Humans are all _Homo sapiens_, the same species. In different locales, there are different _races_, but still all _Homo sapiens_. A Redfoot (_Geochelone carbonaria_) and a Sulcata (_Centrochelys sulcata_) are two completely different species. Turning this into a Caucasian/African/Asian interracial comparison has no bearing on interSPECIES cross breeding. Are you really suggesting that different races of humans are different species? I really hope not.

There are different RACES of Redfoot (Brazilian, Guyana, etc.) just as there are different RACES of humans. But comparing breeding Sulcatas with Leopards and Caucasians with Asians makes no sense. Now, if we were talking about _Homo sapiens_ interbreeding with _Pan paniscus_, then the argument might actually hold some merit.


----------



## ALDABRAMAN (Aug 20, 2011)

Imagine, a aldabra and a redfoot, that would be one amazing hatchling! LOL, just kidding, I am a purist also, I agree with most of you....


----------



## EricIvins (Aug 20, 2011)

It's funny......Everyone is all about the "purity" of their Leopards and Sulcatas, but no one really kept them seperate from the beginning......Can you really call animals of the same species, from different localities ( with obvious differences ), who've been paired up with no thought "pure"?........


----------



## Terry Allan Hall (Aug 20, 2011)

EricIvins said:


> It's funny......Everyone is all about the "purity" of their Leopards and Sulcatas, but no one really kept them seperate from the beginning......Can you really call animals of the same species, from different localities ( with obvious differences ), who've been paired up with no thought "pure"?........



Interesting point...one of my female Eastern Hermann's torts seems to (judging by her appearence) have at least some Dalmation in her ancestry, likely due to the fact that for quite a while Easterns and Dalmations were considered to be one and the same to many/most tort lovers/breeders...which may well mean that ALL of my Easterns MIGHT have some Dalmation ancestry (and presumably some/many/most/all Dalmations could have some Eastern ancestry, as well)...as far as I'm aware, it's impossible to be 100% sure, other than by collecting breeding stock from the center of the Dalmation's or Eastern's range and being very particular about keeping that bloodline "pure", perhaps. Then being as vigalant when introducing new bloodlines into your tort's breeding pool. 

Me, I'm just interested in breeding as a pure a line as I reasonably can, which means I won't breed Western Hermann's torts, or any of the various Greeks, or Russians or Marginateds, w/ my "Easterns". 

So, while I can see why it's important to keep some pure breeding stock, to keep the species/subspecies from dying out, I can also see where some can become so fanatical about "purity" that they miss out on a lot of other nice aspects of sharing one's life and home w/ these delightful beasties.

Just my $.02 worth...


----------



## Tom (Aug 20, 2011)

Terry Allan Hall said:


> Me, I'm just interested in breeding as a pure a line as I reasonably can, which means I won't breed Western Hermann's torts, or any of the various Greeks, or Russians or Marginateds, w/ my "Easterns".



Now THIS is my sentiment on this subject exactly!

With sulcatas any locality data is probably long gone. They have been all mixed up and bred together from wherever in the range they originated from for decades. But at least it is all ONE species. Having said that, I do find the differences in sulcatas interesting and wonder if the differences are the result of natural variation within a species, OR leftover genetic remnants indicating a specific locality. I'm talking about color variation, high domed vs. low domed, long leg scales vs. flatter ones, etc... I'd love to go tour the entire natural range and check to see if I see any familiar traits within wild populations of a given area.

Now Leopards are much more of a mess. First you have the babcocki subspecies, most of which came out of Tanzania. But who knows where the ones that were shipped out of Tanzania really came from? Still, most of the time this subspecies is recognizable in a "relatively pure" specimen, at least from what I have seen. Next you have the pardalis subspecies, the South African one. In my opinion, these two subspecies are very different. At least the ones that are available for sale here in the states. Their size is different, the behavior is different and their appearance is different. As babies, these two are pretty easy to tell apart. As juveniles or adults, its starts to get much more complex because of......

... the third group. The "hybrids" between the two subspecies. Leopards were only imported in quantity from the late 80's until the importation ban put a complete stop to it. I don't remember exactly when that was, but around '98 or 2000. So for a little more than a decade they were coming in and a lot of people just put leopards with other leopards without much though about subspecies or point of origin. There are A LOT of these mixes out here. I personally know at least three breeders that are still doing it. I wish they wouldn't. When I hear about a particularly large babcocki or a particularly unafraid and outgoing one, I can't help but wonder if there is some mixed heritage somewhere in its past. I would imagine that DNA testing might be able to resolve such questions, but even that is a very complex issue. The most recent field study that I have read indicated that there were 11 "clades" of different types of leopards throughout their range. It seems likely to me that the majority of the leopards here in the states are all originally from two of those 11 groups. If there are other leopards from other groups also here in the states, and in the mix, the whole thing just gets exponentially more complex. It is certainly possible that this is the case.

So this leads me back to my original agreement with Terry's post. I am REASONABLY sure that my Gpp are all from the same "clade" and locality within South Africa. The founding stock were direct imports all in the same shipment from the same source, and my breeder still has the import paperwork. There are a lot of people out there claiming to be producing "real" pp, but how can anyone really know, unless its the above described scenario. I have a new baby that is supposedly out of two pp parents and shows all of the pp characteristics. I will never be able to 100% verify that there is not some other clade mixed in there. That one will not be bred to my "pure" stock. I value the fact that my herd is all from one specific location within the natural range and I do not wish to "dilute" their gene pool with animals that I'm not sure of. No more can ever be brought in, so if we lose what we've got, that will be the end of this very special circumstance. I do not intend to let that happen.

If we start mixing species, all things tortoise will become a complicated mess in this way.

BTW, we have a breeder here on our forum who has been very careful in putting together "pure" breeding groups of some of the Testudo species. He only breeds tortoise with others that are from the same known localities. This is who I will buy from when I'm ready to start my own hermanni herds.


----------



## grogansilver (Aug 21, 2011)

I say from now on before I purchase or any body purchases a tortoise people should request and want papers issued to them with what ever their buying! "Tortoise and Turtle" wise, that state's to them the buyer that what their getting is the actual animal And Breed! and also where it comes from! ("purity") "hay dogs and cats can have papers why cant Turtles and tortoises too Right? "Tom your listed as a dog trainer! Dont they the people have to obey the rules as of selling animals in your experiences of selling cats and Dogs right! It would then put all things in there rightfully respected places. Example: DNA Testing if fraudulently expected you didn't get what you paid for! plus there's is also the advantage of the animal having papers itself that will identifiy and follow it around through its life cycle as a record of who it is and where it came from! "Hay" people and a lots of other Breeds of animals have them! ("Papers"!) well its time that all turtles and tortoise have them too!. "Want to Breed" do it Right!
View attachment 10837
And give it papers! 
View attachment 10838
The end!


----------



## Terry Allan Hall (Aug 23, 2011)

grogansilver said:


> I say from now on before I purchase or any body purchases a tortoise people should request and want papers issued to them with what ever their buying! "Tortoise and Turtle" wise, that state's to them the buyer that what their getting is the actual animal And Breed! and also where it comes from! ("purity") "hay dogs and cats can have papers why cant Turtles and tortoises too Right? "Tom your listed as a dog trainer! Dont they the people have to obey the rules as of selling animals in your experiences of selling cats and Dogs right! It would then put all things in there rightfully respected places. Example: DNA Testing if fraudulently expected you didn't get what you paid for! plus there's is also the advantage of the animal having papers itself that will identifiy and follow it around through its life cycle as a record of who it is and where it came from! "Hay" people and a lots of other Breeds of animals have them! ("Papers"!) well its time that all turtles and tortoise have them too!. "Want to Breed" do it Right! And give it papers!  The end!



I've often thought that a similar system might be a good idea, particularily if you're wanting pure-bred reptiles...I know among boa keepers, a lot of breeders would breed this one w/ that one, because they liked the colors and/or patterns, so finding a pure-bred Surinam or Columbian is nearly impossible, in spite of the advertisements, unless you get some freshly captured from those places.


----------



## HLogic (Aug 23, 2011)

Those 'papers' are called studbooks and exist for many species.


----------



## weeneybomber (Aug 24, 2011)

I believe hybridizing and intergrating (sub-species breeding) is sometimes ok. 1. If it could occour naturally due to overlaping territories. 2. If it's to save a species (I was watching "Wild Russia" on animal planet and saw that due to over hunting the native buffalo were too low in numbers to recover in the wild, so humans bred them with American Buffalo and now they are making a come back and re-balancing the eco system.) I personally have a eastern box turtle/ gulf coast box turtle intergrade and a three toed with either eastern or ornate box turtle intergrade. However this is possible in nature. I also see where some people are comig from about keeping species pure, but I personally think it's really cool to see hybrids! Are the tortoise hybrids fertile or is it unknown thus far? BTW this thread is very exciting!!!!!


----------



## N2TORTS (Aug 24, 2011)

Breed vs. Hybrid
Many people confuse these two terms. A breed is a man made variation within a species. Domestic dogs have thousands of breeds, from the doberman to husky to terrier, but all of these are the same species. Breeds arise during domestication, the process by which man breeds an animal for specific characteristics until it becomes a seperate species from the original wild population. Parrots aren't really domesticated, though some, like budgies, are getting there. You can already see two breeds developing within the budgie species: English (show) and American (pet). Breeds are made through selective breeding, the same way you would select birds to isolate a color mutation


JD~


----------

