# Cross breeding



## jjaymeza

Just was curious is cross breeding a thing among tortoise species? Example: a Sulcata with a Galapagos or a cherry head with a yellow foot?


----------



## Tom

It happens, but it shouldn't. Species should never be mixed.


----------



## ohio

It seems to be unacceptable in the tortoise community. Different bacterias, viruses, and keeping blood lines pure. Many subspecies within a species etc. I find it odd because hybrids are everywhere, domestic livestock, dogs, agriculture, etc. I myself think it would be cool to hybrid star torts to be more cold Hardy and handle northern climates and maybe even hibernate through winter months. Lol. I guess another factor would be fertility in the bastard offspring. Then waiting several years before they're able to be sexually mature. A long term long term project.


----------



## wellington

I think cross breeding is a greed move! And should never be done. It's not to better anything but ones bank account.


----------



## wellington

ohio said:


> It seems to be unacceptable in the tortoise community. Different bacterias, viruses, and keeping blood lines pure. Many subspecies within a species etc. I find it odd because hybrids are everywhere, domestic livestock, dogs, agriculture, etc. I myself think it would be cool to hybrid star torts to be more cold Hardy and handle northern climates and maybe even hibernate through winter months. Lol. I guess another factor would be fertility in the bastard offspring. Then waiting several years before they're able to be sexually mature. A long term long term project.


Bad ideas you have.


----------



## ohio

Lol I don't plan to hybrid. I like keeping my species pure but if that was the case there would only be a handful of dog breeds. In nature sometimes things do naturally hybrid plants and animals. Also don't forget about the hopeless mate. When a mutation takes place in offspring and finds the rare anomaly mutant to mate with slowly creating a new species. Nature does it slowly, man makes it happen faster and on our terms.


----------



## RumWeatherReptiles

ohio said:


> Lol I don't plan to hybrid. I like keeping my species pure but if that was the case there would only be a handful of dog breeds. In nature sometimes things do naturally hybrid plants and animals. Also don't forget about the hopeless mate. When a mutation takes place in offspring and finds the rare anomaly mutant to mate with slowly creating a new species. Nature does it slowly, man makes it happen faster and on our terms.





I recently adopted this Three Toed/Gulf Coast box turtle from a rescue. She came from a guy who kept both species together. Part of my adoption paperwork was a statement i had to sign saying that
I would never let this turtle produce viable eggs. I should house him/her separately when he/she reaches breeding age. Or i have to destroy any eggs found if he/she accidentally breeds.


----------



## ohio

Nice looking turtle. How many toes? JK


----------



## jjaymeza

Northeast Reptiles said:


> View attachment 236293
> 
> I recently adopted this Three Toed/Gulf Coast box turtle from a rescue. She came from a guy who kept both species together. Part of my adoption paperwork was a statement i had to sign saying that
> I would never let this turtle produce viable eggs. I should house him/her separately when he/she reaches breeding age. Or i have to destroy any eggs found if he/she accidentally breeds.



May I ask why that was in the adoption paperwork?


----------



## NorCal tortoise guy

The thing about cross breeding dogs is they are all the same species were as the tortoises we are talking about are all differnt species


----------



## Yvonne G

ohio said:


> Lol I don't plan to hybrid. I like keeping my species pure but if that was the case there would only be a handful of dog breeds. In nature sometimes things do naturally hybrid plants and animals. Also don't forget about the hopeless mate. When a mutation takes place in offspring and finds the rare anomaly mutant to mate with slowly creating a new species. Nature does it slowly, man makes it happen faster and on our terms.


different dog breeds are all the same "canine" species. Different tortoises are different species. Apples and oranges.


----------



## jjaymeza

Yvonne G said:


> different dog breeds are all the same "canine" species. Different tortoises are different species. Apples and oranges.



Really wow that’s exciting but what about the different types of Galapagos tortoises for example their shells and some features are different. That’s the same species cause they can breed right?


----------



## Pearly

Yvonne G said:


> different dog breeds are all the same "canine" species. Different tortoises are different species. Apples and oranges.



There is a place in Miami Beach called Jungle Island, they have a cross of tiger with a lion there- they call him „ liger” i know there are MANY other examples but thinkng of tortoises, if they somehow crossed paths breeding age male of one species with mature and receptive female of another that were right size for mating with each other.... would they even do it?!?? I mean- would they want to mate?!! Or are all those hybrids results of human meddling?


----------



## Yvonne G

jjaymeza said:


> Really wow that’s exciting but what about the different types of Galapagos tortoises for example their shells and some features are different. That’s the same species cause they can breed right?


Yes, that's the same species and the resultant babies would be called intergrade.


----------



## Yvonne G

Pearly said:


> There is a place in Miami Beach called Jungle Island, they have a cross of tiger with a lion there- they call him „ liger” i know there are MANY other examples but thinkng of tortoises, if they somehow crossed paths breeding age male of one species with mature and receptive female of another that were right size for mating with each other.... would they even do it?!?? I mean- would they want to mate?!! Or are all those hybrids results of human meddling?


When talking about the liger, they have discovered that In *tigers*, the males contribute the *genes *that limit *growth* and in *lions*, the females contribute those *genes*. So a female tiger bred to a male lion, grows bigger than it is supposed to because the limiting growth gene is not present. In my opinion, it's not right to "play god" this way. Who knows what other problems arise from mixing species.


----------



## Pearly

Yvonne G said:


> When talking about the liger, they have discovered that In *tigers*, the males contribute the *genes *that limit *growth* and in *lions*, the females contribute those *genes*. So a female tiger bred to a male lion, grows bigger than it is supposed to because the limiting growth gene is not present. In my opinion, it's not right to "play god" this way. Who knows what other problems arise from mixing species.



Interesting! Didn’t know about that, but it explains why at Jungle Island they always brag about the size of that liger. He is really quite beautiful. But back to torts, do you think that different species would mate with each other / produce offspring in the wild, had their paths crossed for whatever reason? Or, iare we all programmed in nature to be attracted only to our own kind? Now, there are many deviations from that known to the human kind, but animals? I’d be very curious to hear some good stories from people who have „been around”


----------



## Bambam1989

This topic makes me think of what has been reported in areas of Alaska and Canada. Male grizzly bears are breeding female polar bears, there have even been genetically verified "second generation" polar/grizzly bears found. 
This is an example of wild animals being forced into new areas by environmental changes. In this example though, grizzlies and polar bears are very similar in DNA and are able to produce fertile offspring. 
Tigers and lions are more genetically different than a polar bear and a grizzly though. These animals frequently are born with health problems, usually infertile, and need assistance (C-section) to be born because of their larger size. These animals wouldn't survive in the wild to reach sexual maturity, and then if they did, the likeliness of them being capable of producing a new generation would be slim.
When you breed a horse and a donkey the resulting mule offspring is sterile due to the genetic differences.
So, if two separate species of torts managed to find each other in the wild and had offspring would the resulting hatchlings be capable of surviving without the aid of human intervention? If they did survive would they be capable of reproduction? 
I haven't done any research on whether or not tort hybrids are fertile. I imagine the results would be very comparable to the liger.


----------



## jjaymeza

Bambam1989 said:


> This topic makes me think of what has been reported in areas of Alaska and Canada. Male grizzly bears are breeding female polar bears, there have even been genetically verified "second generation" polar/grizzly bears found.
> This is an example of wild animals being forced into new areas by environmental changes. In this example though, grizzlies and polar bears are very similar in DNA and are able to produce fertile offspring.
> Tigers and lions are more genetically different than a polar bear and a grizzly though. These animals frequently are born with health problems, usually infertile, and need assistance (C-section) to be born because of their larger size. These animals wouldn't survive in the wild to reach sexual maturity, and then if they did, the likeliness of them being capable of producing a new generation would be slim.
> When you breed a horse and a donkey the resulting mule offspring is sterile due to the genetic differences.
> So, if two separate species of torts managed to find each other in the wild and had offspring would the resulting hatchlings be capable of surviving without the aid of human intervention? If they did survive would they be capable of reproduction?
> I haven't done any research on whether or not tort hybrids are fertile. I imagine the results would be very comparable to the liger.



You definitely taught me something. That was an interesting read.


----------



## Yvonne G

Bambam1989 said:


> This topic makes me think of what has been reported in areas of Alaska and Canada. Male grizzly bears are breeding female polar bears, there have even been genetically verified "second generation" polar/grizzly bears found.
> This is an example of wild animals being forced into new areas by environmental changes. In this example though, grizzlies and polar bears are very similar in DNA and are able to produce fertile offspring.
> Tigers and lions are more genetically different than a polar bear and a grizzly though. These animals frequently are born with health problems, usually infertile, and need assistance (C-section) to be born because of their larger size. These animals wouldn't survive in the wild to reach sexual maturity, and then if they did, the likeliness of them being capable of producing a new generation would be slim.
> When you breed a horse and a donkey the resulting mule offspring is sterile due to the genetic differences.
> So, if two separate species of torts managed to find each other in the wild and had offspring would the resulting hatchlings be capable of surviving without the aid of human intervention? If they did survive would they be capable of reproduction?
> I haven't done any research on whether or not tort hybrids are fertile. I imagine the results would be very comparable to the liger.


There are several different species of tortoise living in the same territory in South Africa, yet how often do we hear about or see any hybrid tortoises from there. . . just sayin'


----------



## Bambam1989

Yvonne G said:


> There are several different species of tortoise living in the same territory in South Africa, yet how often do we hear about or see any hybrid tortoises from there. . . just sayin'


Yes. My point is that if two separate species were to mate the resulting eggs/hatchlings would probably not survive for very long. Possible anomalies in their development may cause them to be weaker, and more susceptible to illness. They would probably never hatch or quickly die and be eaten. The ingrained instinct most animals have to produce strong offspring probably plays a part in torts not naturally crossbreeding. Instinctually they know the offspring will be "defective".
While some animal hybrids result in a hardier offspring (mules for example) the genetic differences still have side effects (mules are sterile).
I'm sorry if my theory seems confusing, I lack the vocabulary and fluency to make it more understanding..


----------



## Markw84

Pearly said:


> Interesting! Didn’t know about that, but it explains why at Jungle Island they always brag about the size of that liger. He is really quite beautiful. But back to torts, do you think that different species would mate with each other / produce offspring in the wild, had their paths crossed for whatever reason? Or, iare we all programmed in nature to be attracted only to our own kind? Now, there are many deviations from that known to the human kind, but animals? I’d be very curious to hear some good stories from people who have „been around”



Captivity creates situations that would not naturally exist. We can put species together that would be separated geographically in nature. Abnormal behaviors are created in captivity where pacing, for example, or mounting anything becomes abnormal. Genetic compatibility is another issue to control if they can, in an abnormal situation, create a viable offspring. Many cases of different species could indeed produce offspring by today's definition of "species".

The common standard for describing a different species is the ability to produce fertile offspring. But that has been generally expanded into the understanding of the "likelihood" of breeding. Factors such as geographic separation, mating ritual differences that developed, "attractiveness" of the prospective mate (coloration, head striping, pheromone attraction) etc, etc. have all now become considerations.

Since in order for an organism to reproduce, the chromosomes must be of the same number and sequence to match up and provide the genetic map that creates a successful embryo and animal. Think of the paired chromosome as a zipper. An egg holds one half of the zipper. A sperm holds the other half. When fertilization occurs, the zipper halves have to match perfectly. The same number of chromosomes, and the exact same order. If the zipper cannot match and close completely, no embryo will develop. But in cases where the match is extremely close, the fertility is extremely low, but CAN produce and offspring.

As populations experience mutations to the chromosome (which is relatively common) those subtle mutations can exist in a population. This mutation would cause a mismatch in the gene/chromosome alignment and It becomes hard for the member that has that mutation to produce fertile offspring sometimes. But in those cases, it that individual mates with another member of the population that is also now carrying that mutation, there is again high fertility and the offspring will carry on that mutation. If that is occurring in an isolated population, this trait could eventually become the dominate and more successful breeders and we have a new species emerging.

So, now there are considerations of this that are not simply genetic, but also geographic isolation that makes mating impossible in nature. Or new behavioral mating rituals that makes mating not occur in nature any more. Those animals can still carry compatible chromosomes, yet do not breed in nature. Scientists may agree there is now enough of a total NATURAL breeding barrier to establish a new species. However, in captivity, if introduced 'artificially' they can breed successfully. In most cases there has been enough of a mutation in the order of chromosome alignment where fertility is greatly reduced, but it can happen. The resulting offspring would normally be infertile as they are genetically not compatible to another possible mate they could come in contact with. HOWEVER - if they happen to be introduced to another animal that has a similar genetic arrangement (similar mutation) they could, on rare instances, then produce a viable offspring. So we can have the very rare mule produce a viable offspring.

Chelonians that are in contact with other similar species have specific mating rituals. In fact, often those differences are what were used to justify naming a different species by scientists that decide those things. Those differences in mating rituals, pheromones, coloration, all have served to keep populations from selecting the "wrong" mate. In captivity, we disturb this preference. Where chelonians exist in areas where not other chelonian can ever be encountered, often there is a much more general ritual of acceptance. As in the sulcata that will breed with a leopard as it "looks close enough"!! Genetically there is enough of a difference to make fertility quite low, but there is enough of a similarity, that it CAN work. If the result itself is fertile is even more remote a possibility.

So today we have many "species" that indeed "CAN" create offspring. Since the acceptance of a new species is now defined by geographic and behavioral operations, we can indeed in captivity, alter those separations.


----------



## Pearly

Thank you for that @Markw84, very interesting


----------



## Yvonne G

Bambam1989 said:


> Yes. My point is that if two separate species were to mate the resulting eggs/hatchlings would probably not survive for very long. Possible anomalies in their development may cause them to be weaker, and more susceptible to illness. They would probably never hatch or quickly die and be eaten. The ingrained instinct most animals have to produce strong offspring probably plays a part in torts not naturally crossbreeding. Instinctually they know the offspring will be "defective".
> While some animal hybrids result in a hardier offspring (mules for example) the genetic differences still have side effects (mules are sterile).
> I'm sorry if my theory seems confusing, I lack the vocabulary and fluency to make it more understanding..


I'm not sure if it was in this thread or not, and I'm too lazy to go back and re-read it, but very recently I read that different species of tortoise have different mating habits, and this may contribute to the fact that they don't interbreed in the wild.


----------



## Bambam1989

Yvonne G said:


> I'm not sure if it was in this thread or not, and I'm too lazy to go back and re-read it, but very recently I read that different species of tortoise have different mating habits, and this may contribute to the fact that they don't interbreed in the wild.


I believe Will just mentioned it in this thread..
Yeah what a wonderful way to naturally prevent cross breeding. Go Mama Nature!


----------



## Cowboy_Ken

I’m just happy sittin’ here being attracted to my own species for matin’ purposes. Even if it ain’t fer reproduction purposes.


----------



## Bambam1989

This was interesting
https://relay.nationalgeographic.co.../04/new-species-birds-of-paradise-animals-spd


----------



## cjturtle

NorCal tortoise guy said:


> The thing about cross breeding dogs is they are all the same species were as the tortoises we are talking about are all differnt species


I am still a bit new to tortoises and learning so please excuse me if this sounds dumb. Arnt red foots, yellow foots and cherry heads the same species?


----------



## cjturtle

Markw84 said:


> Captivity creates situations that would not naturally exist. We can put species together that would be separated geographically in nature. Abnormal behaviors are created in captivity where pacing, for example, or mounting anything becomes abnormal. Genetic compatibility is another issue to control if they can, in an abnormal situation, create a viable offspring. Many cases of different species could indeed produce offspring by today's definition of "species".
> 
> The common standard for describing a different species is the ability to produce fertile offspring. But that has been generally expanded into the understanding of the "likelihood" of breeding. Factors such as geographic separation, mating ritual differences that developed, "attractiveness" of the prospective mate (coloration, head striping, pheromone attraction) etc, etc. have all now become considerations.
> 
> Since in order for an organism to reproduce, the chromosomes must be of the same number and sequence to match up and provide the genetic map that creates a successful embryo and animal. Think of the paired chromosome as a zipper. An egg holds one half of the zipper. A sperm holds the other half. When fertilization occurs, the zipper halves have to match perfectly. The same number of chromosomes, and the exact same order. If the zipper cannot match and close completely, no embryo will develop. But in cases where the match is extremely close, the fertility is extremely low, but CAN produce and offspring.
> 
> As populations experience mutations to the chromosome (which is relatively common) those subtle mutations can exist in a population. This mutation would cause a mismatch in the gene/chromosome alignment and It becomes hard for the member that has that mutation to produce fertile offspring sometimes. But in those cases, it that individual mates with another member of the population that is also now carrying that mutation, there is again high fertility and the offspring will carry on that mutation. If that is occurring in an isolated population, this trait could eventually become the dominate and more successful breeders and we have a new species emerging.
> 
> So, now there are considerations of this that are not simply genetic, but also geographic isolation that makes mating impossible in nature. Or new behavioral mating rituals that makes mating not occur in nature any more. Those animals can still carry compatible chromosomes, yet do not breed in nature. Scientists may agree there is now enough of a total NATURAL breeding barrier to establish a new species. However, in captivity, if introduced 'artificially' they can breed successfully. In most cases there has been enough of a mutation in the order of chromosome alignment where fertility is greatly reduced, but it can happen. The resulting offspring would normally be infertile as they are genetically not compatible to another possible mate they could come in contact with. HOWEVER - if they happen to be introduced to another animal that has a similar genetic arrangement (similar mutation) they could, on rare instances, then produce a viable offspring. So we can have the very rare mule produce a viable offspring.
> 
> Chelonians that are in contact with other similar species have specific mating rituals. In fact, often those differences are what were used to justify naming a different species by scientists that decide those things. Those differences in mating rituals, pheromones, coloration, all have served to keep populations from selecting the "wrong" mate. In captivity, we disturb this preference. Where chelonians exist in areas where not other chelonian can ever be encountered, often there is a much more general ritual of acceptance. As in the sulcata that will breed with a leopard as it "looks close enough"!! Genetically there is enough of a difference to make fertility quite low, but there is enough of a similarity, that it CAN work. If the result itself is fertile is even more remote a possibility.
> 
> So today we have many "species" that indeed "CAN" create offspring. Since the acceptance of a new species is now defined by geographic and behavioral operations, we can indeed in captivity, alter those separations.


Just out of curiousity, if a sulcata and leopard did bread, would the offspring be furtle?


----------



## Kapidolo Farms

Yvonne G said:


> There are several different species of tortoise living in the same territory in South Africa, yet how often do we hear about or see any hybrid tortoises from there. . . just sayin'



The exact topic of my graduate thesis. They have partitioned themselves within the the larger habitat so that even though they all live near each other, sometimes within visible range of each other, they go about the "job" of living in slightly different ways. Their is the well regarded niche theory that assume 'competitive exclusion', and then there is the lesser know, but equally valid theory of 'neutrality'. 

In competitive exclusion the idea goes that over time the genetic drift that occurs along with selection will make a species so well placed in a habitat that it will exclude other species because that first species just got so darn good at living in that habitat. This would work more strongly in short lived high turnover things like say, I'm lost for an example. It really means that species can become so specialized they don't compete in average times to times of plenty. The difficult times will often bring species into conflict.

Neutral theory suggests that each species (actually all the individuals) goes about living the best it/they can, and that there is a maximum number of a type of organism that can occupy a certain habitat in the larger sense, like say five species of tortoise all living within a few hundred yards of each other. There is a carrying capacity. When one tortoise dies or matures out of a size group, another one, of any of the species can take it's place, the next egg that hatches.

What makes this really interesting is that there are even behavioral differences of multiple species when they are the same size that keep them apart, even when the adult size will be very different. Say tent tortoises are forever the size of a four of five year old leopard tortoise. That tent tortoise makes it's living very differently that the same size leopard tortoise. They only compete after a few years of drought where food and water resources become very limited. The tent tortoise's physiology can endure it, the leopard maybe not so well. Tent tortoises may lay two or three clutches of 3-5 eggs in good year, leopard may lay two or three clutches of 8 to 18 eggs. In bad years that tent may still lay one clutch, while the leopard may skip that year.

It takes two or three years for a good breeding cycle for any tortoise. One year to bring the female into good nutritional status to support eggs, and one or two years for the neonates to establish. If there had been several years of poor quality resources it might take two season for a female to regain condition to produce eggs. The bigger the tortoise the more resources it takes. 

A little tortoise can more successfully browse on little plants in tight spaces than the large head of an adult leopard, but the leopard can reach plants the smaller tent tortoise can not reach. So years of good and bad resource supply can bounce alot relative to the species.

Then there is a patchwork of resources. A leopard may roam several hundred yards in a day or two, while the tent tortoise does not move that far as frequently.

So many factors that intermittently give one individual an advantage over another, let alone the size class of individuals in that species that is can become neutral. Climax tropical forests (the actual tree diversity) are the best example of neutral theory, but tortoises in south Africa are also a pretty darn good model group of organisms for the same thing.

prattle on a bit there didn't I?


----------



## tortoiseplanet

Out of curiosity, are hybrids fertile?


----------



## NorCal tortoise guy

cjturtle said:


> I am still a bit new to tortoises and learning so please excuse me if this sounds dumb. Arnt red foots, yellow foots and cherry heads the same species?


I'm no expert and I hope one of our Redfoot experts will let us know if I'm wrong but I think red foots and cherry heads are the same species but yellow foots and different


----------



## Markw84

cjturtle said:


> Just out of curiousity, if a sulcata and leopard did bread, would the offspring be furtle?



The offspring most likely would not be fertile.



tortoiseplanet said:


> Out of curiosity, are hybrids fertile?



Hybrids between species are by definition, not fertile, as one of the "rules" that makes species distinct, is that they cannot produce fertile offspring. That has become a bit more blurred a line now with a greater emphasis on "natural and behavioral" barriers instead of pure DNA mismatch. But most of the time, you will see if species do interbreed in captivity, the fertility is very low, and the offspring are normally infertile.

Hybrids between sub-species are indeed most often fertile.



cjturtle said:


> I am still a bit new to tortoises and learning so please excuse me if this sounds dumb. Arnt red foots, yellow foots and cherry heads the same species?



Currently, Red-footed tortoises include cherry heads as the same species. So a Cherry Head is a type of Red-footed tortoise. No sub-species designation has even been accepted there.

Yellow-footed Tortoises are indeed a separate species from Red-footed tortoises. Both are in the same genus - Chelonoidia

Red-footed Tortoise_ = Chelonoidis carbonarius_

Yellow-footed Tortoise_ = Chelonoidis denticulata_


----------



## Kapidolo Farms

NorCal tortoise guy said:


> I'm no expert and I hope one of our Redfoot experts will let us know if I'm wrong but I think red foots and cherry heads are the same species but yellow foots and different


Yes that is absolutely correct. "Cherry head" is a name that was applied to a particularly colorful import of redfoots used by the seller. The name has become widened in use. It would now seem it means any redfoot with a brighter color red on the head and/or marbling on the shell.

http://tortoiselibrary.com/species-information-2/chelonoidis/red-footed-cherry-head/


----------



## Tortoisefanatic88

Pearly said:


> There is a place in Miami Beach called Jungle Island, they have a cross of tiger with a lion there- they call him „ liger” i know there are MANY other examples but thinkng of tortoises, if they somehow crossed paths breeding age male of one species with mature and receptive female of another that were right size for mating with each other.... would they even do it?!?? I mean- would they want to mate?!! Or are all those hybrids results of human meddling?



Off topic but I was there. Here he is


----------



## RumWeatherReptiles

Will said:


> Yes that is absolutely correct. "Cherry head" is a name that was applied to a particularly colorful import of redfoots used by the seller. The name has become widened in use. It would now seem it means any redfoot with a brighter color red on the head and/or marbling on the shell.
> 
> http://tortoiselibrary.com/species-information-2/chelonoidis/red-footed-cherry-head/



I have read an article that says true Cherry Heads may be a different sub species. And that many end up being smaller than regular Red Foots. I will try to find it.


----------



## RumWeatherReptiles

Will said:


> Yes that is absolutely correct. "Cherry head" is a name that was applied to a particularly colorful import of redfoots used by the seller. The name has become widened in use. It would now seem it means any redfoot with a brighter color red on the head and/or marbling on the shell.
> 
> http://tortoiselibrary.com/species-information-2/chelonoidis/red-footed-cherry-head/



https://www.thesprucepets.com/cherry-head-red-footed-tortoises-4057737


----------



## Toddrickfl1

Northeast Reptiles said:


> View attachment 236293
> 
> I recently adopted this Three Toed/Gulf Coast box turtle from a rescue. She came from a guy who kept both species together. Part of my adoption paperwork was a statement i had to sign saying that
> I would never let this turtle produce viable eggs. I should house him/her separately when he/she reaches breeding age. Or i have to destroy any eggs found if he/she accidentally breeds.


Three toed and gulf coast box turtles are the same species, different subspecies. What you have is an intergrade, not a hybrid. A lot of the animals in the captive world are intergrades, sometimes even happens in the wild. It wouldn't be a big deal if you did breed your turtle.


----------

