Leoparcata tortoise. Tell me what you think.

turtlesteve · Nov 20, 2018

mark1 said:
imo , you cannot save a species without maintaining genetic integrity , not diversity ? there are species that are resultant of hybridization , but they are considered neither species they resulted from , they are a species unto themselves …….

They would eventually be classified as a new species, if they are distinct enough and unable to continue interbreeding with the original parent species. It's also extremely common for species to naturally have "contamination" from past hybridization (humans are one example here).

I personally don't find the leoparcata hybrids all that attractive - maybe they look a hair nicer than the average sulcata, but the patterning from the leopard parent is washed out and indistinct. But it's somewhat of a personal preference rather than a value statement. If people are going to breed them, it would be most ethical to breed only the 50:50 genetic ratio. There is potential harm in producing hybrids that could not be distinguished without genetic testing.

drew54 · Nov 20, 2018

It's very unlikely that we can replenish a population of a species under any circumstances. Not with the animal trade, poaching, and the rate of survival. We also have species that are federally protected. In order for us to save a species from going extinct we keep them captive and protected and that's only keeping the species alive as long as possible.

To replenish a species fully we would have to eliminate poaching and animal trade of that species. The only way I can think of doing that is through devaluing the monetary and unique value of that species. So, how would we do that? We would have to give every person on the planet a male and female of that species that are capable of reproduction. Then every person would have to breed them and release the hatchlings. Then we would have to hope that those eggs and our hatchlings survive and survive the food chain. But this is not feasible nor is this practical.

Many organizations that have tried to replenish the tiger population realized that you can only try to save the species rather than repopulate it. And they do this trough captivity.

turtlesteve · Nov 21, 2018

drew54 said:
It's very unlikely that we can replenish a population of a species under any circumstances. Not with the animal trade, poaching, and the rate of survival. We also have species that are federally protected. In order for us to save a species from going extinct we keep them captive and protected and that's only keeping the species alive as long as possible.

To replenish a species fully we would have to eliminate poaching and animal trade of that species. The only way I can think of doing that is through devaluing the monetary and unique value of that species. So, how would we do that? We would have to give every person on the planet a male and female of that species that are capable of reproduction. Then every person would have to breed them and release the hatchlings. Then we would have to hope that those eggs and our hatchlings survive and survive the food chain. But this is not feasible nor is this practical.

Many organizations that have tried to replenish the tiger population realized that you can only try to save the species rather than repopulate it. And they do this trough captivity.

I'm not sure I agree with the underlying concept here. In general, humanity is motivated by money, and we're going to conserve a species if saving it has more economic value than exploiting it. The path forward is to create monetary value, but tie this value to conservation (such as via eco-tourism and the like). Make the animals more valuable alive than dead. Various southeast asian nations, despite extreme poverty, have now implemented strong protections on coral reefs because tourism revenue vastly exceeds any gain from exploitation.

drew54 · Nov 21, 2018

turtlesteve said:
I'm not sure I agree with the underlying concept here. In general, humanity is motivated by money, and we're going to conserve a species if saving it has more economic value than exploiting it. The path forward is to create monetary value, but tie this value to conservation (such as via eco-tourism and the like). Make the animals more valuable alive than dead. Various southeast asian nations, despite extreme poverty, have now implemented strong protections on coral reefs because tourism revenue vastly exceeds any gain from exploitation.

In the general public yes this is true which is why we have Wildlife conservation efforts, zoos, etc. And that's a great example of how humanity is motivated by self interest and money. However, the more endangered and exotic the animal is the higher value it becomes. Thus increasing the demand. Poachers do not care about preservation they care about their payday.

Rhinos in Africa are down to I think around . 100,000 or so in population. To a poacher, black market, and animal trade in general that's 100,000 paydays for animal parts, skin, etc. So, the health of the animal doesn't apply. Whether it's alive or dead they get paid. After the animal goes extinct they move on to another species that is valuable in some way. Even if the animal is protected they are still of high value to these all of these markets if not more valuable.

My point was it's an unlikely option to replenish and completely save an population in need of it due to the realistic factors in place. The biggest being human self interest.

mark1 · Nov 21, 2018

turtlesteve said:
They would eventually be classified as a new species, if they are distinct enough and unable to continue interbreeding with the original parent species. It's also extremely common for species to naturally have "contamination" from past hybridization (humans are one example here).

I was thinking of dogs , wolves , dingo's and coyotes...……….

the only way a species can be saved in the wild is habitat protection , regulations , laws and enforcement , without that it's not possible …….. can you save the iowa population of glyptemys insculpta with glyptemys insculpta from Pennsylvania ?

Sisypha · Nov 28, 2018

Sulcatas and leopard tortoises have shared their sub-saharan (and southward) habitats in the wild for perhaps eons, all the time not interbreeding.

Leopards fr. central Africa exhibit a more discrete shell design, while those who migrated downward towards S. Africa evolved more random freckled carapaces. BUT they all remain Genus: Stigmochelys Species: pardalis. (There is talk of adding a subsp. to distinguish the two, but since shell pattern gradates as tort extends S, all other anatomy & physio being identicaI, it's doubtful this will occur.) Point: they can breed freely, as they are same genus + species.

Sulcatas (Centrochelys sulcata) share a similar distribution and diet but occupy a slightly different "eco-niche" by virtue of size & behavior. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I've just never read/heard of Centro-Stigmo "mules" in their native environment.

A lot of preserves and hobbyists keep both leopards and sulcatas in grassland environs, but since they are different genus & species (as well as behavior), do we in fact have positive genetic evidence for such cross-matings? I remain skeptical. Humbly request to be set straight if I'm wrong…

Sisypha · Nov 28, 2018

Jacqui said:
Does it ever happen naturally in nature?

Sulcata x leopard mating in Sub-sahal Africa? Not according to an [admittedly cursory] lit. search, and the 2 unrelated tortoises have co-habitated in the same nearly-desert grassland regions for ages…

Kapidolo Farms · Nov 28, 2018

Jacqui said:
Does it ever happen naturally in nature?

That's debatable. Some range studies show yes, some show no.

Sisypha · Nov 28, 2018

Will said:
That's debatable. Some range studies show yes, some show no.

Len B · Nov 28, 2018

If it is true. that like mules that neither sex can reproduce I can't understand where the problem is in producing offspring that can't mess with the gene pool in the future.

TechnoCheese · Nov 28, 2018

Turtulas-Len said:
If it is true. that like mules that neither sex can reproduce I can't understand where the problem is in producing offspring that can't mess with the gene pool in the future.

A female leoparcata recently mated with a male Sulcata and layed eggs. I’ll see if I can find the post.

TechnoCheese · Nov 28, 2018

Turtulas-Len said:
If it is true. that like mules that neither sex can reproduce I can't understand where the problem is in producing offspring that can't mess with the gene pool in the future.

Hybrid - leopard and sulcata cross

https://tortoiseforum.org/index.php?threads/Hybrid---leopard-and-sulcata-cross.91177

Len B · Nov 28, 2018

TechnoCheese said:
Hybrid - leopard and sulcata cross

https://tortoiseforum.org/index.php...ads/Hybrid---leopard-and-sulcata-cross.91177/

It wont open for me to read. Does it say the eggs were fertile, did any hatch ? I ask because female tortoises can lay eggs without mating.

TechnoCheese · Nov 28, 2018

Turtulas-Len said:
It wont open for me to read. Does it say the eggs were fertile, did any hatch ? I ask because female tortoises can lay eggs without mating.

It hasn’t been updated in two months, but the eggs were put in the incubator around that time. No idea, but it would be cool to see if they are.

DesertGirl · Nov 29, 2018

wellington said:
Most humans would rather dog, cat, etc, not be mixed. There are a lot of idiots and/or irresponsible humans in this world. I'm never for mixing species/breeds.

Mizcreant said:
There can be an entire new niche market out there for this. Designer tortoises. I can mix two or more breeds together, give them a cutesy / fancy name, and sell them at a premium just like they do with dogs. I can call my new shop "Mizcreant's Miserables". Folks seem to want to spend more if your name sounds French. Lol

Miserables du Mizcreant

DesertGirl · Nov 29, 2018

drew54 said:
I think where people get confused with this is the lack of understanding of taxonomy. When people hear dog or cat they can recognize two different species, but with other animals it gets difficult. People call apes, gorillas, chimps, etc all monkeys. We know that they are not all monkeys and different species. I see this with turtles and tortoises also. People think all turtles are tortoises and they are all the same and vice versa.

Most people look at animals and automatically forget about taxonomy. We look at fish as fish, dogs as dogs, birds as birds, etc. When you ask someone what type of animal they are looking at the popular response is "i don't know it's just a bird."

I believe these terms such as bird, cat, turtle, tortoise, fish, tree, etc. Have become umbrella terms. I think this confuses people when they look at breeds versus a species of an animal. Which is why most people will refer to a different species of tortoise a "breed."

We have become all too comfortable with umbrella terms that we don't often look at things in detail or as "separate" or "not the same." Everyone outside this forum I have discussed tortoises with have all been confused about the difference between a turtle and tortoise. They also, get confused as to what the difference between species are. I am often asked "other than the different shells what makes this tortoise different from this one? They are all tortoises so they should be the same right?"

I think that these are innocent mistakes as learning taxonomy is pretty difficult and a lot of Latin names to remember and distinguish between.

So, my point with this is that we can't always expect people to understand things that are simple or that make perfect sense to us if they are not well versed in those areas. Thus making it the educated persons duty to educate the uneducated.

Taxonomy is very difficult to understand and try explaining the different species of tortoise and turtle to a child. It's almost impossible. I get many confused looks when I'm asked to explaine something as simple as the difference between a turtle and a tortoise.

Anyway, breeding different species is s very interesting subject. Much like cloning and designer DNA. Such programs as "the baby maker" and alike are very fascinating, but how ethical is it?

Breeding different species to me just has too many risks involved. We could kill an entire as species in the process as many people have as already stated.

There runs the risk of genetic mutations that cause diseases and deformities. The process may not even work. It's interesting, but at this point in time I don't think it's very ethical or responsible to do so. There are already too many species of animals going extinct now that I would call it careless and ignorant. It's a cool idea on paper, but the risks are not worth it.

I generally say turtles are wet, torts are dry. That usually satisfies the casual questioner.

TortoiseRacket · Dec 27, 2018

The only hybrid tortoise I am fine with is a redfoot crossing with a yellowfoot, or a redfoot crossing with an elongated. They are very similar in care and come from similar parts of the world and I still don’t really like it. Nothing good can happen from mixing genes from two wild, not domesticated animals. Why do people do that? Is it for looks or just recognition for having hybrids?
Hope that helped!
-Mickey

Leoparcata tortoise. Tell me what you think.

turtlesteve

Well-Known Member

drew54

Well-Known Member

turtlesteve

Well-Known Member

drew54

Well-Known Member

mark1

Well-Known Member

Sisypha

New Member

Sisypha

New Member

Kapidolo Farms

Well-Known Member

Sisypha

New Member

Len B

Well-Known Member

TechnoCheese

Well-Known Member

TechnoCheese

Well-Known Member

Len B

Well-Known Member

TechnoCheese

Well-Known Member

DesertGirl

Well-Known Member

DesertGirl

Well-Known Member

TortoiseRacket

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

New Posts