Cross-species breeding

[Terry Allan Hall]

RE: Interracial Dating

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

Just questions in my mind,

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

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

 

[N2TORTS]

RE: Interracial Dating

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

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

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

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

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

JD~

 

[ascott]

RE: Interracial Dating

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

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

 

[Baoh]

RE: Interracial Dating

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

 

[Tom]

RE: Interracial Dating

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

 

[jaizei]

RE: Interracial Dating

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

 

[natsamjosh]

RE: Interracial Dating

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

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

 

[natsamjosh]

RE: Interracial Dating

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

JD~

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

---

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

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

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

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

 

[Yvonne G]

RE: Interracial Dating

Hi Ed:

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

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

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

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

 

[ascott]

RE: Interracial Dating

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

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

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

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

 

[Terry Allan Hall]

RE: Interracial Dating

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

An interesting question, actually...

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

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

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

 

[Tom]

RE: Interracial Dating

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

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

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

 

[Baoh]

RE: Interracial Dating

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[grogansilver]

RE: Interracial Dating

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Baoh]

RE: Interracial Dating

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[grogansilver]

RE: Interracial Dating

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interracial Dating and Breeding!

---

Interracial Dating and Breeding!

 

[dbsneed69]

RE: Interracial Dating

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[grogansilver]

RE: Interracial Dating

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

 

[dbsneed69]

RE: Interracial Dating

Love the pics grogansilver

 

[grogansilver]

RE: Interracial Dating

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