We have "White Supremacy", why not "Red and Black Spotted Supremacy"?

[Nat1]

First of all excuse me because I'm totally new to the concept of breeding, so perhaps I'm missing something. But as I have been reading on this and other salamander sites the last couple of days, some things I've read seemed like they could have been taken from Mein Kamph (ooops, I'm not allowed to mention that book in the Netherlands:P)! Ok, I can understand that if someone is raising any animals and selling them as something they are not, that's plain, outright cheating. But I've read people saying that if, for ex. one species of Triturus was released into the wild where another species of Triturus lives, and they mated it would be a terrible shame. My question is why??? Triturus carnifex's area of distibution seems to cross that of Triturus karelinii anyway, so if two of them get together and have sexual intercourse, what is the problem? Actually it seems to me that this would create stronger, healthier offspring than two newts who are brother and sister (as the case often is) having children. Inbreding increases the chances of the young being affected by recessive genes. With flowers, combining different traits is appreciated, as it adds almost unlimitedly to the possibilities of shapes, hues, height.

Or is it a question of old-school type nationialism? Should all newts go back to the "Wildersness" ;) from which they came, or that we are proud of our Great Crested Newt in that it is part of our Dutch culture, and therefore we fear losing a cultural icon if Southern Crested Newts with their darker patches and significantly smaller stature mix with them? Is the important point that we can count on fixed behavioral patterns such as eating a cold meal of frozen bloodworms at noon and a warm meal of live worms at EXACTLY 18:00? And not be aggressive towards male-male pairing newts :P?

[Jeroen.S]

It would not be a shame ..it could become a disaster. Eventuely there is the chance there will be no pure animals in that area no more. Were nature allowed this to happen its just nature. We dont need and we should no want to force this by human hand. Its simple as that.

[Hugo]

Natural hybrids are nature,....in nature!
We should not only think about if we are doing natural things by breeding a pure specie or hybrids, but allso we need to conserve the pure species that we all together have in captivity. Once you inbreed karelinii with carnifex, and the animals or the ones from that next generation look al lot like carnifex. Than someone might think what the heck, i'll put that one in with my pure carnifex group. Than he/she breeds again, sells a ****load to lots of people as being carnifex and lots of bloodlines wont be pure anymore. Might even be so that a hybrid may look like a carnifex, but it's juveniles may have some slight karelinii spots for instance...

Basicly, it can the start of screwing up the pure bloodlines in the hobby.
I don't see the need to create unpure species and maybe even spread them in the hobby.
Or are you keeping all 50+ juveniles for your self for the rest of your life?

[Nat1]

I like what Jeroen said and esp. appreciate Joep's comments; I also think we shouldn't take ourselves overly seriously. Hugo, I think I addressed your concern w/ this:

Ok, I can understand that if someone is raising any animals and selling them as something they are not, that's plain, outright cheating.

No?

I'm still wondering why we talk about "pure bloodlines" here, but if we talk about it in terms of humans, who have so many different colors, bodily shapes and sizes, it is politically incorrect? And about the health of two newts who are siblings or cousins having children. Inbreeding increases the chances of the young being affected by recessive genes. Any proof that this isn't the case among amphibians?

[Jeroen.H]

Hybrids don't always make better specimen than their parents.

For example Ligers & Tigons have lots of health problems like infertility (in males)

I think that when you'll crossbreed different species you loose genes.
Your F1 crossbred offsprong may be stronger, but what if you eliminated (by crossbreeding) the gene's that would secure the species survival in a changing habitat (by for example global warming)?
Maybe your crossbreds might be more vulnerable to predation than their parents ect.

There is a reason why species have a different area of distibution.... even when those area's may cross at some points.

Nature has taken care of evolution all those years so why start messing with it?


The human race is 1 species! There are just differences in appearence. So that's not a valid comparisation.

The concept of human races in biology was suggested in 1767 by Swede Carl Linnaeus, Professor of Botany. He grouped into classes, orders, genera, species and subdivisions, establishing the taxonomic classification of animals and plants, with binomial nomenclature unique to each species. However, its subdivisions to humans were only possible because they were based on a biological given arbitrary (skin color) and cultural stereotypes.

[Nat1]

I definitely wouldn't go so far as saying hybrids always make better specimens than their parents. I'm very curious now to see some Ligers & Tigons! I wasn't arguing for messing w/ nature, just that I'm aware from visiting greenhouses, that so many varieties are possible. Whether what cultivators do is ethical or not is a separate issue.

"Inbreeding has become an important consideration for wildlife conservationists. Many wild populations are in danger of extinction due to some combination of habitat destruction and hunting of the animals, either to protect humans or because the animal parts are considered valuable. (Examples are ivory, rhinorcerus horn, and infant apes for the pet trade, as well as meat hunting.) For some of these animals the only real hope of survival is captive breeding programs. But the number of animals available in such captive breeding programs, especially at a single zoo, is often limited. Biologists are concerned that the resulting inbred populations would not have all of the genes found in the wild populations, and thus lose some flexibility in responding to change. In reaction to this threat they have developed networks such that animals can be exchanged among captive breeding poplulations in such a way as to minimize the overall inbreeding of the captive population. The idea is to select pairs in such a way that the inbreeding coefficient of the offspring is kept as low as possible." -http://bowlingsite.mcf.com/genetics/inbreeding.html

Human beings are considered one species (w/ not only differences in appearance, but also corresponding differences in diet, climate preference, courtship patterns and other behavior), but for that matter, how many times do scientists identify and name two different species, just to later realize they were actually variations on one species?  

[Jeroen.H]

From what i heard was that the diversity of the human genepool is one of the smallest there is. We are all close related, we're large in number but low in diversity. That is one of the reasons why there are so many genetical diseases these days.

What you say about captivebred animals in zoo's is correct. I can only hope we can mannage to avoid inbreeding as much as possible so that these species may continue to exist. I also believe that the wildlife population have a bigger diversity (when they are not limited by human boundries).

Deliberately trying to crossbreed species by introducing another species in its habitat is something else.
History has good examples of humans introducing species in an ecosystem only to wittness it turning into a disaster.

[Nat1]

History has good examples of humans introducing species in an ecosystem only to wittness it turning into a disaster.

I don't know if I'd call this "funny", but it certainly does illustrate your point:
http://mysmelly.com/Archive/FunnyStoryAboutIguanasTakingSouth-Florida/bbqpw/post.htm

[Nat1]

This study shows that salamander inbreeding isn't a major cause of physical malformations:

http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~rodw/documents/BIOLLETT_AmphibianMalformations.pdf

Of course I like to keep looking for more evidence, as my cousin-in-law is a scientist, and says that there is funding and careers at stake when such studies are done, and the amount of data they choose NOT to report, far exceeds the amount which they do.

[Willem Meilink]

I'm still wondering why we talk about "pure bloodlines" here, but if we talk about it in terms of humans, who have so many different colors, bodily shapes and sizes, it is politically incorrect? And about the health of two newts who are siblings or cousins having children. Inbreeding increases the chances of the young being affected by recessive genes. Any proof that this isn't the case among amphibians?

The big difference is that we humans are one species. The difference of interbreeding within one species might heighten fitness in some cases. From my own experience, muds can become older than pure bred dog races. This has likely to do with the cumulative stacking of disease caused recessive genes in the pure bred races.

However, what would your opinion be about interbreeding with chimpansees? I mean, thats in fact what you are asking. Its exactly the same if we talk about hybridizing between the Californian tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) with the  Barred tiger salamander (A. tigrinum). Or which ever other species you can mention.

Human beings are considered one species (w/ not only differences in appearance, but also corresponding differences in diet, climate preference, courtship patterns and other behavior), but for that matter, how many times do scientists identify and name two different species, just to later realize they were actually variations on one species?  

There you go: we are ONE species;)

This study shows that salamander inbreeding isn't a major cause of physical malformations:

http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~rodw/documents/BIOLLETT_AmphibianMalformations.pdf

Of course I like to keep looking for more evidence, as my cousin-in-law is a scientist, and says that there is funding and careers at stake when such studies are done, and the amount of data they choose NOT to report, far exceeds the amount which they do.

I personally think this articles isnt worth too much though. These aren't genetic malformations per se. You know that salamanders can regenerate limbs? Well if these limbs regrow weird things could happen.

Real malformations, or diseases, are those individuals which have a weird pose, eat less and are therefor thinner, stuff like that. And the biggest problem with this, natural selection would act on these individuals before scientists can sample these individuals. You should breed species in a tank your self, interbreed Fx+1/Fx+1 generations for some years, and than do the same dna analysis.

I am not saying the limbs aren't a malformation, however the basis of this malformation doesnt necessarily have to be by genetics. And since its a study that take the genetics/phenotype into account, it might be useless to search for a causality. Even if they would have found any, i would have dispute the worth of it.

[Nat1]

The big difference is that we humans are one species. The difference of interbreeding within one species might heighten fitness in some cases. From my own experience, muds can become older than pure bred dog races. This has likely to do with the cumulative stacking of disease caused recessive genes in the pure bred races.

However, what would your opinion be about interbreeding with chimpansees? I mean, thats in fact what you are asking. Its exactly the same if we talk about hybridizing between the Californian tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) with the  Barred tiger salamander (A. tigrinum). Or which ever other species you can mention.

So you are saying that there might be benefits? I wrote this 6 weeks ago after acquiring a completely new hobby, and upon coming across what seemed to me to be extreme political correctness and condescension towards less experienced newt keepers, I reacted quite sensitively. I want to learn proper care and breeding, as long as it is not taken for granted that I "should" accept something before I've learned the principle behind it.

I can only say that my partner is quite hairy, but she's not quite a chimpanzee, and I've always felt queer, so I've personally never felt an interest to procreate. ;) But if others want to give it a go, I think courtship should be based on mutual attraction. Remember that woman who used to flirt with Bokito the gorilla from R'dam 5 years ago? He didn't have the same feelings for her and even innocent bystanders got attacked for it. ;D