# Hybrid, Leopcata?



## Q'sTortie (Sep 25, 2012)

I saw this ad and I was wondering if it was even real. It must be since they are selling it but are there any side effects? Can this even happen in the wild? People have crossed a zebra with a horse and we cross certain dog breeds and call it designer dogs. Will this be a new trend for designer tortoise?? This is my first time seeing a live hybrid tortoise, its really beautiful and it is really puzzling me for some reason. Does anyone here have any "hybrid" tortoises?

http://market.kingsnake.com/detail.php?cat=50&de=951140


----------



## wellington (Sep 25, 2012)

*RE: Hybrid?*

Someone just post a thread yesterday about this. Yes it's possible. Yes it's real. Not sure if it could be done with all species. Others will have more.


----------



## tortadise (Sep 25, 2012)

*RE: Hybrid?*

Jd (N2TORTS) has some leaprucatas, they look pretty neat and show similarities of both species. Im not big on hybrids that have been bred of intention for a buck. But they are interesting to see the different growth of the two species. leopards and sulcatas could possibly cross in the wild if presented numerous times. It takes alot of work I would imagine. I would think the chances in the wild would be slim. Females will retain sperm from males for up to 4 years as well from many other males, so chances of being a total "pure" hyrbid in the wild would be very slim but could possibly have some DNA differences.


----------



## shellysmom (Sep 25, 2012)

*RE: Hybrid?*

I think someone here posted this link yesterday, too. I don't like the fact that some random person can get 2 different tortoise species to mate and then suddenly have something worth $2000. That doesn't sit well with me at all. I mean, it's a beautiful tortoise, no doubt, but still...


----------



## Q'sTortie (Sep 25, 2012)

Ah I must have missed that thread. It doesn't seem to be a common thing I guess since I don't see anything else hybrid for sale or on this forum. I hope it stays that way. I really like having the different species, but it is still intriguing to know what those hybrids would look like.


----------



## GeoTerraTestudo (Sep 25, 2012)

Oh, dear.


----------



## ALDABRAMAN (Sep 25, 2012)

Possible and probable!


----------



## Tom (Sep 25, 2012)

Their ranges do not overlap in the wild.

Personally I don't think we should be diluting the limited captive genes we have and creating hybrids. The two species shouldn't be housed together anyway...


----------



## GeoTerraTestudo (Sep 25, 2012)

Tom said:


> Their ranges do not overlap in the wild.
> 
> Personally I don't think we should be diluting the limited captive genes we have and creating hybrids. The two species shouldn't be housed together anyway...



Yep!


----------



## jtrux (Sep 25, 2012)

People have trouble giving mutt dogs away so why charge 2k for a mutt tortoise, doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## EricIvins (Sep 26, 2012)

I guess I will go out on a limb and say that I think this is probably the best of both worlds as far as a "Pet" Tortoise goes.......The personality without the size, for someone who wants a Sulcata type Tortoise.......

This "genepool" has already been peed in......This is not going to make it any worse.......Besides, when did Taxonomy become black and white? Last I heard, it was a pretty fluid science, and what we have "thought" in the past was not neccessarily right to begin with.......An example would be Cuora Trifasciata.......Expect the same with both Leopards and Sulcatas once the DNA work has been done with them.......


----------



## GeoTerraTestudo (Sep 26, 2012)

jtrux said:


> People have trouble giving mutt dogs away so why charge 2k for a mutt tortoise, doesn't make sense to me.



Remember, mutt dogs are still real dogs. All dogs come from wolves domesticated at least 15,000 years ago. It amazes me that mutts cost less than purebred dogs, when mutts are typically healthier than their pedigreed brethren.

This leopard tortoise x sulcata hybrid is a mixture of two different species that have been separated for millions of years. I agree with you about the price, though. I am happy to pay for wildtype tortoises, but I would pay zero for interspecific hybrids or inbred color morphs and albinos. Sadly, there are plenty of people who don't share that sentiment.


----------



## yagyujubei (Sep 26, 2012)

I can't blame the nay sayers here. After all everyone knows the havoc that resulted when man started breeding mules. You just can't find a horse anymore without some donkey blood in it. And ligers, don't get me started. They're one of the main reasons I don't buy lions or tigers any more. Just can't be sure. I believe that these hybrid are a sign of impending doom "...and low, man created the abomination and named it leoprocattasulpardo or something like that..." One of the signs of the apocolypse.


----------



## N2TORTS (Sep 26, 2012)

EricIvins said:


> I guess I will go out on a limb and say that I think this is probably the best of both worlds as far as a "Pet" Tortoise goes.......The personality without the size, for someone who wants a Sulcata type Tortoise.......
> 
> This "genepool" has already been peed in......This is not going to make it any worse.......Besides, when did Taxonomy become black and white? Last I heard, it was a pretty fluid science, and what we have "thought" in the past was not neccessarily right to begin with.......An example would be Cuora Trifasciata.......Expect the same with both Leopards and Sulcatas once the DNA work has been done with them.......



Eric.....your right! . Remember without limbs you don't have a TREE


----------



## jtrux (Sep 26, 2012)

I guess i'm just not all that impressed when get people trying to see what kind of creations they can come up with. Well I guess a Centaur would impress me, but who wouldn't be impressed by that? lol


----------



## StudentoftheReptile (Sep 26, 2012)

Half man, half horse's arse? Heck, I know some people who are 100% horse's arses!


----------



## TheTortoiseWhisperer (Sep 26, 2012)

I'm on the fence with this topicâ€¦..I just don't see the difference between hybrid torts and hybrid dogs which I happen to have one <---a beautiful Bernadane 1/2 Great Dane 1/2 St. Bernard and he is, hands down the best, most amazing dog we've ever hadâ€¦.besides that, I saw the pictures and good or bad that is one GORGEOUS tort, I personally would love to have one. It really is beautiful.


----------



## StudentoftheReptile (Sep 26, 2012)

TheTortoiseWhisperer said:


> I'm on the fence with this topicâ€¦..I just don't see the difference between hybrid torts and hybrid dogs which I happen to have one <---a beautiful Bernadane 1/2 Great Dane 1/2 St. Bernard and he is, hands down the best, most amazing dog we've ever hadâ€¦.besides that, I saw the pictures and good or bad that is one GORGEOUS tort, I personally would love to have one. It really is beautiful.



The difference is that ALL dog breeds are ESTABLISHED domesticated hybrids of wolves for thousands of years. Whether you have a Great Dane or a Dachsund, it is the same exact species. If you cross those breeds together, it is the same exact species.

A sulcata tortoise is a different species from a leopard tortoise. As mentioned before, their ranges do not overlap in the wild, so they do nto encounter each other naturally. Also, in contrast to cats, dogs, and livestock, people have only been keeping "exotic" pets (i.e. birds, reptiles, fish, etc) on a regular basis for the past few hundred years. None of those animals are domesticated in the sense a dog or a cat or say, a goat or a horse is. Those animals have been selectively bred and refined thousands of years before anyone even considered about carrying tortoises in pet shops.

That is the difference.

The reason many folks get worked over it is because of the issue of preserving biodiversity. It was touched on somewhat in another thread. For an example, let's look at box turtles.

To set the stage, be aware that there are two main species of America box turtle (at least commonly kept as pets anyway): Terrapene carolina sp (the "common" box turtle) and T. ornata sp (the "Western" box turtles).

Within those two species, there are a few sub-species. For instance, under T. carolina, we have (just to name a few):
- T. c. carolina (Eastern box turtle)
- T. c. triunguis (three-toed box turtle)
- T. c. bauri (Florida BT)
- T. c. major (Gulf Coast BT)

Now all of those sub-species look distinctly different from each other, and likewise, are distinctly genetically differnet on the genetic level as well (hence the taxonomy). Be that as it may, throughout much of the eastern U.S., there are a few places where the ranges of these sub-species occasionally overlap. Intergrades are rare, but for the most part, these sub-species have remained distinct for thousands of years.
-----

It should also be noted that localities are very distinct as well. For example, the grey rat snakes and eastern box turtles here in southern Alabama are very different looking from the grey rat snakes and eastern BTs in say, South Carolina. Same exact species, but they look very different. As a BT enthusiast, I want to preserve the bloodlines of the eastern box turtles from southern AL because they look very distinct from other easterns. But this becomes difficult when dealers can't tell me the origin of the box turtles they are selling. And then, some people just keep hordes of BTs in a large pen, regardless of species, and let them all breed together.

In the grand scheme of things, if people aren't careful and watching what they're doing, its possible the niche market for southern Alabama locality eastern box turtles get smaller and smaller, to the point where no one knows how to get them anymore (as collection laws are more restrictive with each passing day). Do you see where I'm going with this?

I got friends who keep eastern kingsnakes and greyband kingsnakes. They are diehard purists. If the snakes didn't come from the same zipcode, they won't pair them together! A little extreme, but you see my point on why it is important to preserve localities and pure bloodlines.


----------



## GeoTerraTestudo (Sep 26, 2012)

^^Good job, Student.

Yes, all dog breeds are simply domesticated wolves (one species, _Canis lupus_). Moreover, the giant breeds like Danes didn't always look like that. The ancestor of the Great Dane was the German boar hound, used to hunt wild pigs. However, the boar hound did not weigh 150 lbs! It weighed only about 90 lbs, a weight at which dogs can be large and strong without losing their agility or vitality. Great Danes may look cool (insert definition of "cool" here), but their appearance comes from human caprice, not real-world needs.

Yag: of course horse blood didn't get "polluted" by donkey blood via mules; mules are usually sterile, and although hinnies can be fertile, the demand for true horses is high. However, the domestication of the horse _did_ lead to the extinction of all wild horses except the Przewalskii wild horse (_Equus ferus przewalskii_). All the other subspecies: gone. Ditto for the domestication of cattle - their wild ancestor, the aurochs, has been extinct for 400 years. And today bison conservation is much harder, because people did try crossing cattle with bison, and some of it stuck. Today, most bison have cattle introgression, and that's a real obstacle to bison restoration. As for ligers, well, it's illegal to keep a huge carnivore as a pet, and in the wild ligers can't do what each of their parent species can. Again, bad choice.

As for these leopard x tortoise hybrids, it's bad enough that sulcata and leopard tortoises are different species. But as Student said, we're trying to conserve these animals, not mess with them.

The point is this: why can't humans leave well enough alone? Sure, some meddling is inevitable. After all, we share the planet with other creatures, and they share it with us. We have to find some way to coexist, and that means adapting. But the trouble with us humans is that we think that just because we can do a thing, it necessarily follows that we should do a thing (JP). Sure we can breed animals in all these weird ways, crossing some, inbreeding others. But why? Just to show how clever we are? Not a good reason. Unless there's some external justification (like a last ditch effort to prevent extinction), then we should not be forcing these other animals to hybridize or inbreed. It's not healthy for them, and it's not right for us.


----------



## yagyujubei (Sep 26, 2012)

GeoTerraTestudo said:


> ^^Good job, Student.
> 
> Yes, all dog breeds are simply domesticated wolves (one species, _Canis lupus_). Moreover, the giant breeds like Danes didn't always look like that. The ancestor of the Great Dane was the German boar hound, used to hunt wild pigs. However, the boar hound did not weigh 150 lbs! It weighed only about 90 lbs, a weight at which dogs can be large and strong without losing their agility or vitality. Great Danes may look cool (insert definition of "cool" here), but their appearance comes from human caprice, not real-world needs.
> 
> ...



Well eventhough your answer to my post seems concise and factual, much of what you said is merely conjecture, and some is simply not true.

Dogs are not "domesticated wolves" they are not canis lupus. They are their own distinct species, very different from their progenitors.
New evidence says that horses were domesticated over 9000 years ago. I have seen no evidence that says that their emergence led to the decline of wild equines.Same thing with the aurochs, hunting was the cause of their extinction. The last herd lived in Poland in the 1400's, protected by the king. There is evidence thast says that aurochs were pitted in the roman arenas.
Your whole objection seems to be based on the assumption that these tortoise hybrids are fertile. What makes you think that. Most hybrid animals are not able to reproduce naturally. I suspect, though, that even if they do prove to be infertile, you would still object.Your entire argument seems to be against any scientific study or advances. Your way of thinking seems a little narrow minded to me. If you think that beefalos raised in the seventies are the reason wild bison don't roam everywhere anymore, I'm just not sure where they are supposed to roam. I think it just might have something to do with the government attempt to kill the indians in the 1800's, followed by the large western cattle ranches unwilling to share their almost free leases of government land with the native bison. I'm just sayin'


----------



## GeoTerraTestudo (Sep 26, 2012)

yagyujubei said:


> Well eventhough your answer to my post seems concise and factual, much of what you said is merely conjecture, and some is simply not true.



We'll see about that.



> Dogs are not "domesticated wolves" they are not canis lupus. They are their own distinct species, very different from their progenitors.



Wrong. The latest genetic research has shown that the dog comes from wolves domesticated in southern Asia - probably the Arabian, Indian, or Tibetan wolf subspecies. With the exception of some rare hybridization events with coyotes and golden jackals (their next closest relatives), dogs are pure, domesticated wolves, _Canis lupus familiaris_.



> New evidence says that horses were domesticated over 9000 years ago. I have seen no evidence that says that their emergence led to the decline of wild equines.Same thing with the aurochs, hunting was the cause of their extinction. The last herd lived in Poland in the 1400's, protected by the king. There is evidence thast says that aurochs were pitted in the roman arenas.



Horses went extinct in North America around 10,000 years ago, probably due at least in part to over-hunting. In the Eastern Hemisphere, the horse was probably domesticated, as you say, around 9,000 years ago on the Eurasian steppes. Horses were then used as war transport and beasts of burden while agrarian civilization spread. This cut down on habitat available to wild animals, then as now. Hunting was also a factor. Thus, except for the Mongolian wild horse, the only horses to survive were those that had been domesticated.

Ditto for cattle. Aurochs were domesticated some 10,000 years ago for use as beasts of burden, meat, and milk. Again, as civilization spread, wild aurochs lost habitat, while domesticated aurochs survived alongside humans. Again, over-hunting was also a problem. The reason aurochs were down to only a few individuals in Poland during the 1600s was because of all that hunting and agrarian expansion that took place up to that point.



> Your whole objection seems to be based on the assumption that these tortoise hybrids are fertile.



Wrong. Fertile or sterile, I think it's wrong to artificially hybridize animals that have been separated by millions of years of divergent evolution.



> What makes you think that.



I don't know if they're fertile or sterile. Like most people, I am curious. We'll probably find out in the near future as people's hybrids reach maturity. If they're fertile, they jeopardize captive stocks of each species. If they're sterile, then we have bred unhealthy animals for no reason (fertility is an aspect of health). Either way, we lose.



> Most hybrid animals are not able to reproduce naturally.



That is true for mammals, yes, although as other TFO members have pointed out, hybrid reptiles appear to retain fertility more easily than hybrid mammals. This is probably because mammals have chromosomal sex determination, while reptiles have environmental sex determination.



> I suspect, though, that even if they do prove to be infertile, you would still object.



Correct.



> Your entire argument seems to be against any scientific study or advances.



My argument relies on the most recent biological research, as well as ethics.



> Your way of thinking seems a little narrow minded to me.



Why?



> If you think that beefalos raised in the seventies are the reason wild bison don't roam everywhere anymore, I'm just not sure where they are supposed to roam. I think it just might have something to do with the government attempt to kill the indians in the 1800's, followed by the large western cattle ranches unwilling to share their almost free leases of government land with the native bison. I'm just sayin'



Yep, great points. Bison were reduced from 30 million down to 500 animals due to over-hunting, industrialism, and white genocide against Indians. A number of obstacles, as you pointed out, have arisen since then. However, today the Buffalo Commons movement seeks to reintroduce bison to the Great Plains, both for conservation and commercial use. Since the 1970s, the demand for bison ranching has grown, such that today we have 500,000 bison. Most of that demand has come from bison meat, which is good and good for you.

The problem with cattle introgression is that it makes it harder to introduce bison into new areas, because people are concerned they will pollute the gene pool of full-blooded bison. If no one had bred "beefalo" or "cattalo" 100 years ago, it might be easier to expand bison ranching and conservation today.

What will our descendants say about us 100 years from now?


----------



## StudentoftheReptile (Sep 26, 2012)

Good post, GTT.

I'm sorry...I cannot resist. I was watching Big Bang Theory the other night and this line seems applicable.

"Dennis, would you like some Aloe Vera? Because you just got burned."


----------



## dmmj (Sep 26, 2012)

Just a note this has been moved to the debate section. my thoughts on this is well known.


----------



## acrantophis (Sep 26, 2012)

This thread is fascinating! Its interesting to see a hybrid tortoise though I am conflicted. Hybrid pythons are becoming increasingly poplar in the pet trade. I think they look pretty cool. Ecologically I see no problem creating some of these hybrids. On the flip side, as a former commercial breeder of poison dart frogs I do see a problem. Locality specific colonies of PDFs exhibit so many unique and mysterious colors, patterns, and behaviors. Many are not recognized subspecies. Yet many people mix them. With the rapid decline of amphibians in the neotropics it is essential to have captive colonies separated by locality. It would be a tragedy to lose a morph because of mixing bloodlines.


----------



## StudentoftheReptile (Sep 27, 2012)

As stated before, the issue is not exclusive to hybrids. Doug Dix of DeerFern Farms, famous for captive-bred Uromastyx lizards, also keeps and breeds chuckwalla lizards. In one interview, he stated that they don't interest him that much personally, but he only works with them simply because hardly anyone else does. Chuckwallas are protected in much of their natural range, so collection of wild specimens is not a viable option anymore (which in many ways, is a good thing). But as for the market, maybe 20 people or less deal with them. Doug continues to breed them and sell them because there's always going to be someone out there who wants a chuckwalla.

Likewise, not many people deal with ringed pythons. They are not easy to import in large numbers and only a handful of folks in the U.S. breed them. I mean, if Tom Koegen in Florida suddenly had a fire burn down his facility, there goes half the ringed python breeding stock in the country.

It certainly puts things in perspective, when it comes to preserving any obscure species, subspecies, natural intergrade, or locality, etc. People take these things for granted, but one day, someone is going to say, "Hey, where did all the _____ go?" and the answer will simply be: no one really took the time and effort into working with them, so bloodlines got muddied and eventually, the pure stock faded into the industry.


----------



## Tortus (Sep 29, 2012)

If these are being bred exclusively for the pet trade, I really don't see a major problem with it. 

It's what the breeder chooses to do in order to make money. These breeders in particular are not bringing the animals into the world to preserve a species. 

If the recipient breeds the hybrids and sells them into the pet trade and so on, there could be a line of hybrids being sold as something else. I guess that's why most people recommend getting to know your breeder in order to know what you're getting. But again these are pets and not something to be taken to Africa and set free to pee in nature's gene pool.


----------



## mctlong (Sep 29, 2012)

Tortus said:


> But again these are pets and not something to be taken to Africa and set free to pee in nature's gene pool.


----------



## Terry Allan Hall (Sep 29, 2012)

jtrux said:


> People have trouble giving mutt dogs away so why charge 2k for a mutt tortoise, doesn't make sense to me.



Mutts sell much better if you give them a cool name and refer to them as a Designer Dog... 







*Peruvian Hamster Hound - $750*​

OTOH, if you call the above a chihuahua-toy poodle mix, you're lucky to give them away...weird, huh?


----------



## ALDABRAMAN (Sep 29, 2012)

Terry Allan Hall said:


> *Mutts sell much better if you give them a cool name *


----------



## N2TORTS (Sep 30, 2012)

Ok ... I've tried so hard for a week..... to "zip the lip"

Oh No Terryâ€¦..you have a Hybrid dog ? â€¦.Your going to ruin the world , the dog breeds , fish and birds! â€¦donâ€™t you know Hybrids are a NO NO â€¦<sly grin> . It seriously cracks me up to see how many get worked up and their so called ethics on Hybrids. I wonder what their opinion would be on Human crossesâ€¦Oh wait were ALL homo sapiens so thatâ€™s ok â€¦..right? Yet I have never seen one tortoise , dog or animal, cause more havoc within their own species other than MAN ( itâ€˜s gotta be in the DNA huh ? ) . â€¦..and honest it would take hundreds of years to see if it really was a problem â€¦. Just like what we try and compare to â€œ whatâ€™s supposed to be known fact todayâ€ . Your really think there is 500 years left here on Earth? â€¦. REALLY?â€¦â€¦â€¦..
Another thing with this boundary line BSâ€¦â€¦.If your talking about 100â€™s of years back â€¦.there were no 
â€œ LINESâ€ then . Your example of boundariesâ€¦.what you mean a river? â€¦Mountain range? â€¦. HA! â€¦.Tribes from around the world have used the tortoise as a food staple and in ceremoniesâ€¦.. for ions . So try and imagine your fake African boundary line-â€¦â€¦â€¦ Tort A on one side and tort B on the other â€¦â€¦ya invite me over for dinner , I want to bring something to share â€¦.10 torts on a rope ( yes they were used by European Shipmates and explorers as a major food sourceâ€¦Easy to thread on a rope and hang for storage, also one heck of a cool dish , among other things such as spear heads from its shell. Anyhowâ€¦.I show up for the BB-Q after crossing the river in my boat â€¦.gotta hit the head , set my 10 torts on a rope down . Too much coffee that am ..Wait coffee wasnâ€™t invented then yet either â€¦ ( ha ha ha  ) longer than expected â€¦come back to find 10 on a rope is down to 8 â€¦..two of them escaped. Gosh darn â€¦..I just introduced a tortoise on the other side of the riverâ€¦â€¦within an other â€œspecies ONLY boundary â€ <~~~made up name by Man. 
Two years later it mates with â€œ the other side of the boundary tort â€œ Wa La ! ,,,,, You have a hybrid ! 
Most who like to back the â€œ purist thingâ€ are taking in info from BOOKS not actual hands on research in the field of genetics of herps â€¦ most of which are very outdated. The tort world is some what new to genetic science and unless YOU have DNA results from this , your â€œ just talking out your ARSEâ€ ( I think that was used and legal ) . Very soon I will have a patent on a service that WILL produce ACCURATE results in pure DNA Testing , Sexing and just about anything you want to know about your torts â€œmake upâ€( At any age) . We have been working on this technology for a few years and trying to bring it to a level thatâ€™s affordable for the average consumer, not just Zoos, or Medical Institutes. I wouldnâ€™t be surprised if any of the â€œpuristsâ€ torts have no DNA relations at all showing their endemic range. <~~~~~better word than â€œ boundariesâ€˜â€ or genetic make up within different specimensâ€™ within that area. Stay tuned and we shall seeâ€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦

PS> TERRY â€¦. KOOL UGLY PUREBRED MUTT â€¦.( sorta reminds me of me after a night of partying)
And HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU v^v^

JD~


----------



## N2TORTS (Sep 30, 2012)

I might add.... sure there â€œisâ€ a locality /endemic range within species , but there is that â€œin-betweenâ€ and always will be . And if in this case tortoises ...are not too far off within DNA makeup and fertility capabilities that can produce offspring....sorta makes ya wonder. WERE TALKING SCIENCE NOT ETHICS 
To date I donâ€™t know of a penguin x zebra cross.....It CAN'T happen.
JD~


----------



## Terry Allan Hall (Sep 30, 2012)

N2TORTS said:


> I might add.... sure there â€œisâ€ a locality /endemic range within species , but there is that â€œin-betweenâ€ and always will be . And if in this case tortoises ...are not too far off within DNA makeup and fertility capabilities that can produce offspring....sorta makes ya wonder. WERE TALKING SCIENCE NOT ETHICS
> *To date I donâ€™t know of a penguin x zebra cross.....It CAN'T happen*.
> JD~



If it did happen, it'd sell better if we called it a "designer parrot"...or a "designer pony"...

We'll have to consult the Marketing Department, I suppose.


----------



## LuckysGirl007 (Sep 30, 2012)

StudentoftheReptile said:


> Good post, GTT.
> 
> I'm sorry...I cannot resist. I was watching Big Bang Theory the other night and this line seems applicable.
> 
> "Dennis, would you like some Aloe Vera? Because you just got burned."



BAZINGA! . Couldn't resist either!



Terry Allan Hall said:


> If it did happen, it'd sell better if we called it a "designer parrot"...or a "designer pony"...
> 
> We'll have to consult the Marketing Department, I suppose.



A "Zenguin"!

I obviously have nothing to add to this thread but I found it very interesting to read. ;P


----------



## MichiLove (Sep 30, 2012)

I don't think they should do that, huh!?



StudentoftheReptile said:


> Half man, half horse's arse? Heck, I know some people who are 100% horse's arses!



lol


----------



## Blueturtleman1 (Sep 30, 2012)

MichiLove said:


> I don't think they should do that, huh!?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## GeoTerraTestudo (Sep 30, 2012)

N2TORTS said:


> Ok ... I've tried so hard for a week..... to "zip the lip"
> 
> Oh No Terryâ€¦..you have a Hybrid dog ? â€¦.Your going to ruin the world , the dog breeds , fish and birds! â€¦donâ€™t you know Hybrids are a NO NO â€¦<sly grin> . It seriously cracks me up to see how many get worked up and their so called ethics on Hybrids. I wonder what their opinion would be on Human crossesâ€¦Oh wait were ALL homo sapiens so thatâ€™s ok â€¦..right?



Technically any crossing of DNA is "hybridization." But when we use the term "hybrid," we are referring to an interspecific hybrid, i.e. an artificial cross that would not happen if the animals were free to choose their own mates.

A mutt dog is not a hybrid, because all dogs are domestic wolves in the same species and subspecies.

A mixed human is not a hybrid, because all humans are in the same species and subspecies.

Can't say the same for artificially induced hybrids between tortoise species that would never mate unless deprived of their own kind.



> Yet I have never seen one tortoise , dog or animal, cause more havoc within their own species other than MAN ( itâ€˜s gotta be in the DNA huh ? )



Well, we are the most intelligent animal on the planet - free to use that intelligence constructively or destructively.



> â€¦..and honest it would take hundreds of years to see if it really was a problem â€¦. Just like what we try and compare to â€œ whatâ€™s supposed to be known fact todayâ€ . Your really think there is 500 years left here on Earth? â€¦. REALLY?â€¦â€¦â€¦..



Of course I do.



> Another thing with this boundary line BSâ€¦â€¦.If your talking about 100â€™s of years back â€¦.there were no â€œ LINESâ€ then. Your example of boundariesâ€¦.what you mean a river? â€¦Mountain range? â€¦. HA! â€¦.Tribes from around the world have used the tortoise as a food staple and in ceremoniesâ€¦.. for ions . So try and imagine your fake African boundary line-â€¦â€¦â€¦ Tort A on one side and tort B on the other â€¦â€¦ya invite me over for dinner , I want to bring something to share â€¦.10 torts on a rope ( yes they were used by European Shipmates and explorers as a major food sourceâ€¦Easy to thread on a rope and hang for storage, also one heck of a cool dish , among other things such as spear heads from its shell. Anyhowâ€¦.I show up for the BB-Q after crossing the river in my boat â€¦.gotta hit the head , set my 10 torts on a rope down . Too much coffee that am ..Wait coffee wasnâ€™t invented then yet either â€¦ ( ha ha ha  ) longer than expected â€¦come back to find 10 on a rope is down to 8 â€¦..two of them escaped. Gosh darn â€¦..I just introduced a tortoise on the other side of the riverâ€¦â€¦within an other â€œspecies ONLY boundary â€ <~~~made up name by Man. Two years later it mates with â€œ the other side of the boundary tort â€œ Wa La ! ,,,,, You have a hybrid !



Remember, anatomically modern humans evolved some 200,000 years ago, and we went through a bottleneck some 80,000 years ago. We left Africa only some 40,000 years ago, and humans arrived in the Americas only some 14,000 years ago.

Meanwhile, tortoise species diverged from each other millions and millions of years ago, due to dispersal, isolation from natural barriers, etc.

Sure, humans have an impact on our environment; we're animals, too. But we are unique animals - very unique - in that we have morality. We can actually stand back and evaluate what we're doing, and assess whether it is good or bad.

Now, I ask you: why would you want to jeopardize creatures that were finely honed over millions of years of evolution into their current, amazing form?


----------



## N2TORTS (Sep 30, 2012)

No Geo ... I wouldnâ€™t change a thing ..Nor do I endorse it. I guess what more of the focus is ..." just how true" that animal is because we say so ? And your right species vs species is different ... maybe more of the focus is on "locality" such is in the redfoot debates. The river factor was ment to be in that analogy of Hybrids could and probably did take place all through out time, and like you mention when man was introduced to those areas things changed .... species crossed lines. So now in this century we are going to label an exact range on which breed is exactly from what area? I honestly donâ€™t think thatâ€™s possible , until further research as mentioned can " trace" that sort of linage. A great example of a Perfect Race Tortoise would be the two Island Torts the Galapagos and the Aldabra....two untouched islands for 1,000 s of years with no intervention by man.

PS:... Where you stashing all these resources were going to need in 500 years~


----------



## GeoTerraTestudo (Sep 30, 2012)

N2TORTS said:


> No Geo ... I wouldnâ€™t change a thing ..Nor do I endorse it. I guess what more of the focus is ..." just how true" that animal is because we say so ? And your right species vs species is different ... maybe more of the focus is on "locality" such is in the redfoot debates. The river factor was ment to be in that analogy of Hybrids could and probably did take place all through out time, and like you mention when man was introduced to those areas things changed .... species crossed lines. So now in this century we are going to label an exact range on which breed is exactly from what area? I honestly donâ€™t think thatâ€™s possible , until further research as mentioned can " trace" that sort of linage. A great example of a Perfect Race Tortoise would be the two Island Torts the Galapagos and the Aldabra....two untouched islands for 1,000 s of years with no intervention by man.
> 
> PS:... Where you stashing all these resources were going to need in 500 years~



Well, you certainly raise a fair point about two areas of uncertainty: 1) the history of a group of animals, and 2) how long it has been since they have been isolated from others.

Here's a great example with our own species. Humans and chimps are obviously very different now, but that's because we've been separated for about 6 million years. However, early on in the split, it seems that the two lineages still hybridized every now and then:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/1283664...himp-human-ancestors-interbreed/#.UGiO0U2jw40

That couldn't happen now, but it was possible back then, because our common ancestor had not fully diverged yet. The same may be said when comparing any two groups of animals. Go back for enough, and they come from the same group. It's just that today, with our humanly powers, we can go beyond the kind of natural hybridization that goes in on early divergence, and force hybridization in lineages that are fully separated. I think that should be avoided.

As for distribution in the past, that's one of my favorite topics.  For example, there used to be horses, camels, elephants, and lions right here where I'm sitting in Colorado, and may have been wiped out in part due to human activities. Getting back to tortoises, the Mexican bolson tortoise also used to be found north of the Rio Grande. However, since this was during pre-Colombian times, the federal government refuses to reintroduce them into national parks, like Big Bend NP, for example. Fortunately, wealthy conservationists like Ted Turner are willing to reintroduce them onto their own private property, as in New Mexico, where they're doing fine.

Now, when you're talking about the leopard and sulcata tortoises, I don't know how closely their ranges today reflect their ranges in the past. Perhaps they used to be more widespread, perhaps they used to be less widespread, I just don't know. Nevertheless, because they diverged so long ago, I don't think that is relevant to the question of whether they should be hybridized. They are so different, that they should remain separate.

We could look at other examples, too. We've already talked about how closely related all box turtles are, and how closely related all redfoot tortoises are (including cherry-heads). We could also talk about how closely related all Mediterranean tortoises are. Nevertheless, I still think it is worth keeping them separate, because our mixing them would probably not improve their fitness, and could reduce it.


----------



## N2TORTS (Sep 30, 2012)

Very well said Geo and great writing skills to boot â€¦. ( both you and Mark are superb writers) Also a classy debate â€¦..and Like Iâ€™ve said before your â€œ one smart cookieâ€ With a lot of folks learning Iâ€™m sure! 
I still wonder though if such a different species , than why are they able to produce offspring? I guess what drew my interests to them years back . I have herd of a radi x RF but no â€œ hardâ€ proof. RFx YF common â€¦.and much of the Leoâ€™s today are washed genesâ€¦. Arenâ€™t those different species ( that would have different DNA but produced offsprings) or in the Leo case sub speciesâ€¦.?
Darwin once wrote â€¦ â€œNo one definition has satisfied all naturalists; yet every naturalist knows vaguely what he means when he speaks of a species. Generally the term includes the unknown element of a distinct act of creation.â€

JD~


----------



## GeoTerraTestudo (Sep 30, 2012)

N2TORTS said:


> Very well said Geo and great writing skills to boot â€¦. ( both you and Mark are superb writers) Also a classy debate â€¦..and Like Iâ€™ve said before your â€œ one smart cookieâ€ With a lot of folks learning Iâ€™m sure!
> I still wonder though if such a different species , than why are they able to produce offspring? I guess what drew my interests to them years back . I have herd of a radi x RF but no â€œ hardâ€ proof. RFx YF common â€¦.and much of the Leoâ€™s today are washed genesâ€¦. Arenâ€™t those different species ( that would have different DNA but produced offsprings) or in the Leo case sub speciesâ€¦.?
> Darwin once wrote â€¦ â€œNo one definition has satisfied all naturalists; yet every naturalist knows vaguely what he means when he speaks of a species. Generally the term includes the unknown element of a distinct act of creation.â€
> 
> JD~



Thank you. You're a smart cookie, too. I think we're now getting to the important aspects of this debate, which are, 1) if these animals can hybridize, then why not let them? And 2) If we let them, what harm can come from it? Allow me to repeat one line from your passage above:

"I still wonder though if such a different species , than why are they able to produce offspring?"

The answer I would offer is this. In nature, small differences in DNA can have big effects. Using humans as an example again, we are very closely related to chimps and bonobos, and only a little more distantly related to gorillas (all well above 90% relatedness). But it's those small genetic changes that made us what we are today, and them what they are today. We walk erect, they don't. They're hairy, we're not. They have big brains, but ours are even bigger. And so on.

Let's look at deer. Mule deer and whitetail deer are closely related, but they are usually found in different habitats. There are some areas, though, where they may meet, and when that happens, there's a small chance they may hybridize. Bucks that are mule deer x whitetail hybrids tend to have "funny-looking" antlers, which are not quite like one parent species, and not quite like the other. Also, when they flee from predators, their locomotion is a bit "funny," too. So, even though they are viable, and ever fertile (!), it's rare for them to pass on their genes. Partly because they are not as good at running away from danger. Even if they do, though, the does of either species do not prefer to mate with them. Thus, these hybrid bucks are doomed to a life of bachelorhood. 

Let's look at canids, like wolves and coyotes. These two species are very closely related - close enough that the red wolf, which was once thought to be a separate species of canid, turns out to originate from a hybridization event between wolves and coyotes, with no unique genes having arisen since then. So, although matings between wolves and coyotes may result in reduced fertility, they don't always. This can give rise to a new group, like the red wolf. In general, though, when wolves meet coyotes, they don't mate with them. Usually, when wolves find coyotes they chase them down and expel them from their territories. And if they catch up with them, they usually kill them. Curious, isn't it? Why wouldn't they mate? They are capable of mating, but they don't. On the contrary, because they tend to compete, coyotes usually avoid wolves, and if they don't, they might end up getting killed. Turns out this has to do with a phenomenon known as *competitive exclusion*.

Within a given species, mating results in some degree of interbreeding. Not everybody mates with everyone else, obviously, but enough mixing goes on to keep the species together as a unit. That is, to prevent evolution into another species. However, sometimes populations split up for one reason or another (migration, famine, drought, new landscape features, whatever). If the separation is short, then the two populations may get back together and continue interbreeding. In that case, no speciation will occur. However, if the separation persists, and the two populations remain separate for a long time (thousands to millions of years), then they will eventually start evolving in different directions. New colors or morphologies may arise, new physiological traits may evolve, and new mating rituals may appear. Then, depending on how long the separation continues, if they ever meet again, individuals from one population will probably not choose to mate with those from another, even if they are still genetically compatible to one degree or another.

This lack of compatibility could have more significance than just mating. The two populations may have just drifted apart, in which case hybridization probably wouldn't have an impact on fitness. However, there could be more to it than that: the two populations may have become adapted to new conditions since their divergence. So, for example, if the first population stayed where it's wet and the other population moved somewhere drier, then the two groups would be adapted to two different levels of moisture or humidity.

Now, here's the kicker. Let's say some individual from the wet-adapted species successfully mates with another from the dry-adapted species. The babies hatch, and they are healthy, and even fertile. However, they're not as good at living in the wetter habitat as the one parent, and they're not as good at living in the drier habitat as the other parent. So, they are more likely to die in nature, because they are not well-adapted to either niche. In other words, they may be healthy and even fertile, but they are not as fit, so their chances of survival are lower.

Let's look at this from the standpoint of each parent. In the case of the male, it's probably not all that important if he mates with the "wrong" female. Short of getting a bad disease (which we know can definitely happen), he doesn't have much to lose. It's just a million sperm out of gazillions. If the baby dies, it doesn't really affect his father's fitness, from an evolutionary perspective. But now let's look at this from the female's point of view. She has to carry eggs or fetuses around until they're ready to be laid or born. That is a big investment of time and energy. It's a good risk to take if she mated with a fit male from her species. However, it's a bad risk to take if she mated with a male from another species, even a closely related one. For the reasons outlined above, the offspring of that union would be less likely to survive or breed. For that reason, the female should not mate with a male from even a closely related sister species.

Well, that's about it. Sorry for the long post, but I hope I've explained why even closely related species that could mate with each other usually do not.


----------



## N2TORTS (Sep 30, 2012)

GeoTerraTestudo said:


> N2TORTS said:
> 
> 
> > Very well said Geo and great writing skills to boot â€¦. ( both you and Mark are superb writers) Also a classy debate â€¦..and Like Iâ€™ve said before your â€œ one smart cookieâ€ With a lot of folks learning Iâ€™m sure!
> ...



Now thats what I'm talking about!......Great info on the entire post ~

JD~


----------



## chairman (Oct 2, 2012)

I've had two questions since I first heard of these guys. 

The first, are the hybrids like ligers/tigons where it matters who mom/dad are in terms of how they will turn out? For example, could a mixture of male sulcata to female leopard create an aldabra-sized hybrid because the 'growth stopping gene' gets shut off but a male leopard and female sulcata create hybrids similar in size to their parents?

The second, it appears to be much more difficult to raise an unpyramided leopard vs a sulcata... where do the hybrids fit in?


----------



## GeoTerraTestudo (Oct 2, 2012)

chairman said:


> I've had two questions since I first heard of these guys.
> 
> The first, are the hybrids like ligers/tigons where it matters who mom/dad are in terms of how they will turn out? For example, could a mixture of male sulcata to female leopard create an aldabra-sized hybrid because the 'growth stopping gene' gets shut off but a male leopard and female sulcata create hybrids similar in size to their parents?



Probably not, since tortoises have temperature-dependent sex determination, as opposed to chromosomal sex determination. In other words, male and female tortoises can have the same genes. Not so with mammals, where females have two X chromosomes, and males have an X and a Y.



> The second, it appears to be much more difficult to raise an unpyramided leopard vs a sulcata... where do the hybrids fit in?



I don't know. JD, any observations about this yet?


----------



## N2TORTS (Oct 2, 2012)

GeoTerraTestudo said:


> chairman said:
> 
> 
> > I've had two questions since I first heard of these guys.
> ...



Well you guys ...great question ! .. I also believe its more of a tendency for Leo's to pyramid than Sullies. Rather Wild or Captive... I have seen both . " In the wild " and here at home. Anyhow , one of the Lep's for sure has more attributes of a Leo's make-up ex : Shell Shape, head size and legs...also scales are different and yes this particular one is slightly more pyramided than the other ...( now grant it my torts are treated like a 5month old baby with about 4-5 hours a day involvement taking care of them, Feeding , cleaning, yard work ..and just plain "gazing" at how amazing these creatures are. Of course this accounts for all 20+ in the collection at present.) So I know they receive the utmost care in diet and â€œwater timesâ€ and housing . Development has been very interesting since I know they are kept and treated the same way. They are by far one of the most attractive " desert type torts" I have seen. Both are growing machines and have surpassed the white Leo in size and about half the age. Of the two, the more sullie one is also the brute of the two. Bigger in size and personality ....both to date have shown extreme transformations and the likeness of both of the species involved, as well as a pure joy to interact with . I told myself I wouldnâ€™t share anymore pics of them ...because of all the harshness and comments made. The funny thing though .....is the folks who canâ€™t stand the idea are the first ones' to open the thread and look! So rather people (Generalized) find it a " wrong doing " Human nature still puts the brain into overload and intrigues us when out of the ordinary things happen and " proof " it can happen. Rather being man made or natural .
Again for the record I did not breed /hatch these but acquired them at 3 weeks old â€¦.and glad I did so~ :shy:


JD~


----------



## GeoTerraTestudo (Oct 2, 2012)

N2TORTS said:


> I told myself I wouldnâ€™t share anymore pics of them ...because of all the harshness and comments made. The funny thing though .....is the folks who canâ€™t stand the idea are the first ones' to open the thread and look! So rather people (Generalized) find it a " wrong doing " Human nature still puts the brain into overload and intrigues us when out of the ordinary things happen and " proof " it can happen. Rather being man made or natural .
> Again for the record I did not breed /hatch these but acquired them at 3 weeks old â€¦.and glad I did so~ :shy:
> 
> 
> JD~



I feel bad about this, as I am one of the ones to have jumped down your throat. As you know, I think hybridization is a bad idea. But you have them, you didn't breed them, and you care for them. Personally, and setting aside my regard for them as cute (if odd) tortoises, at this point I regard them as an interesting experiment. Not one that should really be repeated, but one that is valuable nonetheless. I, for one, hope you continue to post pix of your little hybrids and document how they're doing.


----------



## DrewsLife727 (Oct 2, 2012)

Very interesting. aLl views. The part of life is everyone has the free will to have their own opinion and that should be respected. Thats what makes us human! JD's torts are interesting and Id love to see updates on these guys as much as I can!


----------



## N2TORTS (Oct 3, 2012)

GeoTerraTestudo said:


> N2TORTS said:
> 
> 
> > I told myself I wouldnâ€™t share anymore pics of them ...because of all the harshness and comments made. The funny thing though .....is the folks who canâ€™t stand the idea are the first ones' to open the thread and look! So rather people (Generalized) find it a " wrong doing " Human nature still puts the brain into overload and intrigues us when out of the ordinary things happen and " proof " it can happen. Rather being man made or natural .
> ...



Well Geo ... it's all good ...plus I think alot of folks learned some great info during this thread ...I did !.....Your a very smart man and I can appreciate that ....plus like you mentioned this was a "hands on" chance of a lifetime.. to accurately provide some detailed developments and factual information about the hybrids . I do keep very detailed records and I sorta like to take pictures .. ( ha ha ) ...
Anyhow ... thanks for the encouragement and words ...... and stay tuned for the updates. 
" Have a great tort~n Day " 
JD~




DrewsLife727 said:


> Very interesting. aLl views. The part of life is everyone has the free will to have their own opinion and that should be respected. Thats what makes us human! JD's torts are interesting and Id love to see updates on these guys as much as I can!



Well Mr. Drew ... "well said" and I'm sure you'll see more of them ~
Peace~ 


JD~


----------



## Terry Allan Hall (Oct 3, 2012)

I'm most curious about if these hybrids will be able to reproduce, and if so, will it only be females, only males, or will it be both. 

Also, how large will they grow, and if there'll be other interesting developements as they mature.

Lots to learn here...it'd be interesting to track this info from as many Leopcata owners as possible, to gain a fuller understanding.


----------



## redfoot7 (Oct 3, 2012)

This is a good thread. A lot of good info. I'm personally against it but if there was a species to experiment with it would be the sulcata. They are so over bred that i can't see this affecting the captive gene pool. And as far as ethics go, I can't see how these are any worse than breeding normal sulcatas for a profit. There are way too many as it is. At the rate they are going, you'll be able to get one for $25 in a couple years, and larger majority won't be properly cared for. Similar situation as green iguanas 10 years ago. Just my opinion.


----------



## Terry Allan Hall (Oct 4, 2012)

redfoot7 said:


> This is a good thread. A lot of good info. I'm personally against it but* if there was a species to experiment with it would be the sulcata. They are so over bred that i can't see this affecting the captive gene pool. *And as far as ethics go, I can't see how these are any worse than breeding normal sulcatas for a profit. There are way too many as it is. At the rate they are going, you'll be able to get one for $25 in a couple years, and larger majority won't be properly cared for. Similar situation as green iguanas 10 years ago. Just my opinion.



You make some very valid points. And, add to that list Burmese pythons.


----------

