Outcrossing with sub-species

[Stevie]

Did you make that up yourself???

That was my question exactly! I never heard of E.m.domesticus and I don't believe it actually exists. Not one reptile species is that domesticated that it deserves a 'domesticated' name by it's own, like for example our dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) cats (Felis domesticus, but now Felis catus) and pigs (Sus scrofa domesticus).

Greets,

Stevie

 

[Stevie]

There is no such specie or sub-specie as Eublepharis macularius domesticus. It's just a fancy name for a leopard gecko "mutt'... which is basically what we all have now.

The way it's written E.m.domesticus implies it to be a scientific name and that is just not the case (or I just missed the recently published article, that's also possible ).

Greets,

Stevie

 

[crotaphytidae]

I've used E.m. domesticus when placeing all my leos under a scientific name for years. As Marcia said it's just a name given to the mutts that we all love and cherish but on a more scientific level. The fish community has done it for years with discus and freshwater angelfish. :main_thumbsup:

 

[Gazz]

Did you make that up yourself???

I've seen it about to do with reptiles.I thought quite usful term to conferm you taking about the pet-type with mix blood ancestory & morphs.Tropical fish breeders,cichlid especially & koi breeders have use the turm for years.Basically leo come in loads of morphs.They are bred for mans pleaser like fish.And it's still possible to get wild stock.So when your talking about pet type(mutts) and new wild pure bloods.I just find it easyer a people tend to catch on pretty fast where your common from.After all fish are about as domestocated as reptiles.In fish etc'etc'domesticus just means man made morph of the speices in question.

Domestic pretty much means bred by man for man In one way or another.And where not breeding reptiles morphs to let them free in the wild.Where breeding them for use to enjoy.And that is a bred by man for man.

 

[Golden Gate Geckos]

Leopard Geckos are NOT a 'domesticated' specie. We might like to think they are, but they will never be domesticated by world standards. Using the scientific term E. m. domesticus for our mixed race leopard geckos is not only incorrect, but a lame attempt in justifying what we have done to them. Sorry, it's just my opinion.

 

[SaSobek]

Leopard Geckos are NOT a 'domesticated' specie. We might like to think they are, but they will never be domesticated by world standards. Using the scientific term E. m. domesticus for our mixed race leopard geckos is not only incorrect, but a lame attempt in justifying what we have done to them. Sorry, it's just my opinion.

Agreed :main_thumbsup:

 

[Stevie]

Leopard Geckos are NOT a 'domesticated' specie. We might like to think they are, but they will never be domesticated by world standards. Using the scientific term E. m. domesticus for our mixed race leopard geckos is not only incorrect, but a lame attempt in justifying what we have done to them. Sorry, it's just my opinion.

Couldn't agree more! My point exactly!! I think it's just wrong to use this kinds of name giving to an animal. This is NOT what Linnaeus thought of when he made up the system. I read that people use the name E.m. domesticus to make clear to people the animal isn't wild caught, well...in Europe we have a great system for that: write on the label if the animal is wild caught or not! Do not mess with scientific name giving, people will be confused. If the gecko is a bright orange coloured Tremper Enigma showing the typical spinning behaviour, I think it's clear to everyone that this animal is a captive bread animal and not wild caught.

Don't try to make your hobby more scientific when you're not please, this only makes things more confusing for others.

Greets,

Stevie

 

[SaSobek]

Don't try to make your hobby more scientific when you're not please, this only makes things more confusing for others.

Gazz dose that from time to time :main_thumbsup:

 

[Gazz]

Get over it already it's hardly illegal :main_rolleyes: .Like i said fish breeders have use the term and for a longtime and fish are no more or no less domesticated then reptiles.Also some reptile breeder use the term for speices that come in meny morphs.And i'm not on about when your selling then you would imform the buyer what there buying.Where on a forum do you put a lable ??.And as for your 'If the gecko is a bright orange coloured Tremper Enigma showing the typical spinning behaviour'.S*** example what if the leo has no direct wild link but is just creamy yellow with spots so looking the spitting of a wild blood.I've seen somtimes people selling domestic(mutt) leo's as a pure wild in latin name just coz they looked the same.When EVERYONE stops i will till then so :rifle: me .If that's all you've got in you life that it works you up that much.Here a idea open your frount door go out and live a little :main_thumbsup: .

 

[Stevie]

I'm not making the rules here. This is not the place to discuss my life (if you want to, your welcome to drink a beer with me and we can discuss all night long ). Please come with some more intelligent arguments if you want to discuss something with other people...

"When EVERYONE stops i will till then so me ." --> when other people do something very wrong, that wouldn't be a reason for my to do it too; and b.t.w. I have nothing to do with fish breeders... I just think it looks stupid, because it seems scientific, but it just isn't. It looks like someone wants to seem smart, but really doesn't succeed in doing that. I can understand that the origin of the animal has to be clear, but use another way to do that. You can name your geckos whatever you want, but please do not try to mess with a system that has proven itself. As a biologist I just can't accept it (not that I can do anything about it) and I think that things like this really damage the credibility of a forum.

Greets,

Stevie

 

[SaSobek]

I'm not making the rules here. This is not the place to discuss my life (if you want to, your welcome to drink a beer with me and we can discuss all night long ). Please come with some more intelligent arguments if you want to discuss something with other people...

"When EVERYONE stops i will till then so me ." --> when other people do something very wrong, that wouldn't be a reason for my to do it too; and b.t.w. I have nothing to do with fish breeders... I just think it looks stupid, because it seems scientific, but it just isn't. It looks like someone wants to seem smart, but really doesn't succeed in doing that. I can understand that the origin of the animal has to be clear, but use another way to do that. You can name your geckos whatever you want, but please do not try to mess with a system that has proven itself. As a biologist I just can't accept it (not that I can do anything about it) and I think that things like this really damage the credibility of a forum.

Greets,

Stevie

well said :main_thumbsup:

 

[Golden Gate Geckos]

Back on track here... this Russian University has an interesting website with information on 3 of the 'sub-species/localities' of Leopard Gecko:

http://sci.ege.edu.tr/~bgocmen/emacularius.html

I would also like to quote from Greg Maxwell's book where he quotes Dr. Guido Westhoff, a professor from the Institute of Zoology, University of Bonn, Germany, where he describes the differences between specie, sub-specie, race, and locality in reptiles:

A 'locality' just describes that an animal comes from a certain geographical location... a locality therefore does not describe and special characteristic or feature of that animal, just the the geographic origin is the point regardless of morphological relevance.

A 'race' is always determined by certain characteristics (like the difference between a German Shepherd and a Poodle, and so on). A race is not taxonomically of any value because a race only describes a bundle of features and characteristics that can be found in man-made or natural populations. A natural race may have the status of a sub-species, but that is not always the case.

Sub-species of any specie are usually defined by specific features and characteristics that occur only in a geographically isolated range... for example an island or other land-locked location.

Three important things to define when considering such localitites are:

1. The definition of characteristics and features (or combinations) that clearly do not occur in the rest of the range. To achieve this, one has to define 'types' inside the suspected locality range and outside the range.

2. The definition of the geographical range. A name of a town or village nearby is certainly not providing this most important argument to talk about 'true' locality. Usually, borders of the range of this 'locality' are drawn into a geographical map. This is absolutely necessary to define in order that the thrid (next) point is valid.

3. The borders of the range of the described locality must define the geographical isolation. In other words, the same species cannot live as a neighbor to that border. If that is the case, and point #1 is truly valid, we would have a case of no gene flow making our new species (which is not the case as crossbreeding and natural intergrades prove). If there is another locality right next to our new locality type we have to describe the size of the bastardizing zone (I won't go into detail about what a hybrid-zone and bastard-zone tells us about species and subspecies, they are a tool often used by taxonomists and evolution biologists). If the bastard zone is too large/broad, the first point (above) cannot be valid, especially in a "micro-locality."

OK, so many of you will not totally get this... but basically what it says is, that unless a leopard gecko (Eublepharis macularius ssp.) is from a specific isolated locality (geographical location) with no chance of natural intergrade, and has distinctive characteristics that others do not have, then they cannot be actual sub-species.

A leopard gecko's size means little when determining a 'sub-specie'... just as any other living creatures come in different shapes and sizes. Until we can get into the Middle East and start collecting specimens for DNA testing and to create range maps, it will be hard pressed to make any claim that any of them are a 'true' sub-specie... but are most likely a race, or simply a locality.

 

[Rhacodactyl]

With all due respect, most taxonomists don't even agree on exactly what makes a species-there are multiple definitions accepted by different individuals at this point. As far as subspecies go, the general trend is to do away with the subspecies concept completely these days (though I'm personally against it, I think subspecies are quite useful in some cases). So although this gentleman quoted has good, viable definitions for races, localities, subspecies, etc., they aren't the only ones and it's not as if he has the final word on the subject. I think there's still a lot of room for debate in this case, though I'm personally not familiar enough with the complex to draw any conclusions of my own about the various "subspecies."

 

[DAWNoftheLEO]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie

Don't try to make your hobby more scientific when you're not please, this only makes things more confusing for others.

Gazz dose that from time to time :main_thumbsup:

Kind of like test breeding het blizzard enigmas to prove they are blizzard/blazing enigmas and yet still having them for sale on the company site AS blazing and blizzard enigmas? :main_lipsrsealed:
Very very confusing? Should we take you with a grain of salt? :main_lipsrsealed: (maybe this should be in the ethics forum instead)

I think generalizing as domesticus (which I could give 2 poops about) as a "fancy name", is no different than generalizing geckos with lighter colors as "pastels" (which there is debate about too):main_huh: ((just my opinion)) or how some people dub enigma crosses, e-type or trempers with normal patterning and ruby eyes as R.A.P.T.O.R's. No biggie.

Can't you kids and bioligists debate nicely?:main_huh:

As far as sub species and hybrid vigor, couldn't be a bad thing IMO.

Structure wise, as stated by those before me, fasciolatus makes the color pastel out, with a lanky look and a semi wild attitude, i've also noticed a more diamond shaped head. Afghanicus seem to give some nice bold patterns with overall smaller structure and a timid seemingly more kind demeanor.

I will be hatching eggs from e fasciolatus X e afghanicus shortly. Has anyone else attempted intergrades? Or have any pictures? ( please don't post a normal or domesticus picture, lol:main_rolleyes: )

The lizards of iran, the last link and the eyelash gecko book (marcia, this book is so cool) are all fun sources:main_thumbsup:

 

[SaSobek]

Kind of like test breeding het blizzard enigmas to prove they are blizzard/blazing enigmas and yet still having them for sale on the company site AS blazing and blizzard enigmas? :main_lipsrsealed:
Very very confusing? Should we take you with a grain of salt? :main_lipsrsealed: (maybe this should be in the ethics forum instead)

im going to take this as a jab to me and Alberto so i am going to address this. first of all yes we did think that we had the blizzard enigma and the blazzing enigma was sold to us as that a blazzing blizard enigma (i guess you should take every breeders word with a grain of salt) two we came out and said we were wrong multiple times but i guess you just didnt read that because half of thoughs treads got deleted because they got to name calling and stuff was said that the geckos gods didnt want to let out. yes we are test breeding those geckos and we didnt sell them after we say whatother people were hatching. and about our website i thing the lats time it was updated was last Dec (we are working on that as well) so take this with a grain of salt and wash it down with some water because if anyone is going to be truthful with any of you about any thing its going to be us. :main_thumbsup: http://www.geckoforums.net/showthread.php?t=20272&page=2

 

[Stevie]

I think generalizing as domesticus (which I could give 2 poops about) as a "fancy name", is no different than generalizing geckos with lighter colors as "pastels" (which there is debate about too):main_huh: ((just my opinion)) or how some people dub enigma crosses, e-type or trempers with normal patterning and ruby eyes as R.A.P.T.O.R's. No biggie.

Can't you kids and bioligists debate nicely?:main_huh:

When calling an animal "pastel" or "R.A.P.T.OR", you're just describing the morph (I personally stopped doing that, because I'm tired of the discussions whether an animal is a tangerine or not, but that's another story). This isn't the same as calling a leo E.m.domesticus, because it implies that that is the (scientific) name of the species and not the morph. Sure, most people couldn't care less, but as a 'scientist' I feel this is just wrong for the reasons I stated earlier...

Greets,

Stevie

 

[paulnj]

I just want to say that the ONLY thing I ever got from Matt or Alberto that didn't prove out was a mack 66% raptor and that'll happen

Can we get back to outcrossing and subspecies now ?

 

[DAWNoftheLEO]

Matt, I am doing no different than what you have done to others in this thread.

Is it not the truth about you guys proving them out? Why do you feel that it's a personal shot as opposed to truth? Why only make excuses for the second time, about taking those geckos off the site, it takes less than 2 minutes to delete them off with any website using a wysiwyg or any html editor. If this is not confusing, I don't know what is.

To answer back, first, we are at the mercy of our fellow breeder.
Second, you may be guessing wrong (assuming) Matt as I have posted in a few of the threads myself, with proof pics. Thirdly, I'm sure the threads took a turn for worse, when you get defensive, i have seen it a few times. Fourth, if you are test breeding them, PLEASE, stop confusing people and have them on the website for sale. Fifth, just update the site bro, kyle updated wiki. Sixth, if you are 3rd partying geckos YOU are at the mercy of the breeder you got them from, you may be telling us what you know but may be mislead by who you got them from. My experience with am was perfect except for the fact that I got sent geckos with regen tails and wasnt told. And yes, Alberto did contact me back to make it right. (respect)As far genetics, 100%.


As far you admitting, okay fine, follow up by taking them off the site and confusing people.

Yuri, it can impy what it wants, but as far as them being generalized as domesticus, let it alone, if people wanna do it, dont bash em for it. If you're a science fighter, do something bigger for the science community than bicker about a "fancy name" and a seemingly moot point.

Paulie, I did try, I know youre a wild guy, any intergrades?

 

[DAWNoftheLEO]

Some awesome angramainyu shots,(angra mainyu= god of darkness in persian)
the pics coincide (appearance wise) with other pics I've seen. The hatchlings do seem a little bigger but look way different!

http://www.geckosunlimited.com/comm...-eublepharis/31896-whoohoo-angramainyu-2.html

http://www.geckosunlimited.com/comm...eublepharis/33411-angramainyu-hatchlings.html

 

[paulnj]

once I get my hand on males of any subspecies:main_evilgrin: