Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 76 of 76

Thread: Localities...

  1. #71
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    763
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 37 Times in 25 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelred View Post
    Also, I do understand what you are saying about helping animals out of the eggs. That, however, is much different from culling animals that do not meet the standards. If the pair of reptiles is producing enough offspring that you have to worry about culling...then I really don't think you should be breeding them in the first place.
    Very polite indeed. Specially because i never talked about culling anywhere.
    4,14,x Rhacodactylus ciliatus
    1,1 Rhacodactylus leachianus leachianus Friedl Line
    1,1,1 Rhacodactylus leachianus henkeli Nuu Ana
    1,0 Rhacodactylus cf leachianus
    0,0,3 Rhacodactylus trachyrhynchus trachyrhynchus
    and some other herps ...

    greetings from austria
    ingo
    www.napalm.at

  2. #72
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    526
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 7 Times in 5 Posts

    Default

    What I don't understand, is whats the issue with keeping around the pure localities just to see what happens, and expand into the crosses ?

    Is it simply because people feel they do not have the space ?
    Or do not want to risk having "Left over hatchlings" that wont sell ?
    I mean, I have seen a few leachianus posted here especially in the last couple months that just wont sell. But I have a feeling this is from another reason.
    personally I don't mind having both Pure GT Chahoua, Pure PI Chahoua, as well as PI and GT crosses. I also have the space still, so that leaves me this option.

    I personally think keeping the pure locals around is of course worth the effort.
    Have people forgotten there are reports of female leachianus giving birth to fertile eggs while never seeing a male ?
    I know this is still un-proven, but could this mean that in-breeding this particular species may really not have any great effect on the health and mentality of these Reptiles ? Just a hypothisis with no real back up. lol

    I will agree with some, that keeping a few pure locality Leachianus as well as Chahoua would be Ideal, however if just a little more testing could be done to determine what there genes really look like.
    I mean maybe one day a Leachianus will just be a Leachianus and a Chahoua will just be a chewie, I personally wouldn't care if we were still able to see all the differen't color variations and personalities.

  3. #73
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    526
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 7 Times in 5 Posts

    Default

    I understand that if we continue to inbreed that there is the possibility that the bloodlines will come to a genetic dead end, however whats the problem with crossing these genetic dead ends back into a differen't bloodline at that point ?
    If a few undesirable charecteristics pop up from this, can't they just be bred out eventually ?

  4. #74
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Spokane, WA
    Posts
    658
    Thanks
    13
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ciliatus View Post
    Comparing inbreeding in mammals with inbreeding in reptiles is comparing apples with peas. Comparing mixing possible subspecies with mixing dogbreeds is even more far away from the point.
    I agree with you but for a different reason. The reason comparing inbreeding in dogs and inbreeding in Rhacodactylus is impertinent is because dogs have undergone artificial selection by humans for so many years, whereas Rhacodactylus haven't.

    Aber Ingo, denken Sie daran, dass Hunde, Äpfel und Birnen sich alle einer umfangreichen Selektion unterzogen haben, oder?

    ----------------------------------------------------------------

    Quote Originally Posted by saisaac View Post
    Someone earlier said that there is only one species of leachies however according to many sources I have come across there are the Grande Terre giant gecko Rhacodactylus leachianus leachianus from Grande Terre and Henkel's giant gecko Rhacodactylus leachianus henkeli from Isle of Pines.
    As far as herpetoculture is concerned, you're correct. As far as Biologists and Phylogenetecists are concerned though, the jury is still out until Dr. Aaron Bauer releases his new gecko phylogeny. There have been some studies done already which indicate there isn't enough genetic variation between the offshore leachies and the mainland species to warrant the offshore geckos a subspecies status.

    As far as phylogenetics are concerned though, species and subspecies categorizations are different for almost any organism. For example, in some organisms there is a tremendous amount of genetic variation between two species, but in other organisms that same amount of genetic variation is only found when comparing two different families (two levels of organization higher than a species). It's all very relative, so there's really no "right" or "wrong" answer as far as Phylogenetecists are concerned, there are only results.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------

    Quote Originally Posted by MPLexus301 View Post
    Does the product of ten or fifteen years of inbreeding really represent what we are trying to preserve in the first place?
    With Leachies it indeed may because after 10-15 years you're only around F2-F4 generations. Also I'm not sure I follow why inbreeding of a specific locale would (after 10-15 years) not represent the characteristics of the original animals?
    1.0.0 - Eunectes murinus (Green Anaconda)
    0.1.0 - Chamydosaurus kingii (Frilled Dragon)
    ∞.∞.∞ - Rhacodactylus "all-of-'em-us"
    And many other species of Diplodactyline and Carphodactyline gecko

  5. #75
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Spokane, WA
    Posts
    658
    Thanks
    13
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flyvagaric View Post
    If a few undesirable charecteristics pop up from this, can't they just be bred out eventually ?
    They can, and I think that's what Ingo (ciliatus) was trying to get at in some of his earlier posts, and I agree with him. Animals that have genetic deformities shouldn't breed. That does NOT mean they need to be culled, I don't know how that got throw into the mix here because Ingo certainly didn't bring that up, he just said they shouldn't breed. I have a few animals with deformities, and I will love them as pets, but they won't get to breed.
    1.0.0 - Eunectes murinus (Green Anaconda)
    0.1.0 - Chamydosaurus kingii (Frilled Dragon)
    ∞.∞.∞ - Rhacodactylus "all-of-'em-us"
    And many other species of Diplodactyline and Carphodactyline gecko

  6. #76
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    OR
    Posts
    5,671
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked 33 Times in 15 Posts

    Default

    I think some of the problem with this conversation is that by culled some people mean killed and others mean kept from breeding. The term means 'to remove' in definition but the implied is the problem.

    Culling is the process of removing animals from a group based on specific criteria. This is done in order to either reinforce certain desirable characteristics or to remove certain undesirable characteristics from the group. For livestock and wildlife, the process of culling usually implies the killing of animals with undesirable characteristics.
    Not all people use the term the same. Personally, when I say cull I mean to keep it from breeding not kill it. I would never willingly kill an animal unless it was in pain and not going to get better... or to feed it to something else.
    Sarah & Jake
    LunarGecko.net
    Feel free to check out our Fauna reviews or follow us on FaceBook!
    You can also check out most of our animals on our iherp page.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •