Outcrossing with sub-species

[crotaphytidae]

If they are just a mixture of the E. macularius subspecies then that would be perfectly fine, but without knowing for sure that they are this and not also a combo with E. angramainyu, E. fuscus, and E. turcmenicus is near impossible so to be on the safe side I just assume that they are a combo of not only the subspecies but also the species mentioned. Unless someone has definitive evidence that there is no other species in their genetic makeup, if this is the case then E. macularius would be perfectly fine and I would have no agruement otherwise. I've also got a friend who is a mammalian taxonomist, I'll ask him what the proper terminology is for any animal that has been hybridized by man for several generations and get back to you all. :main_thumbsup:

 

[crotaphytidae]

Ok so I found the correct way and explination to differentiate our lizards from wild stock in scientific nomenclature. Here it is:
[Instructions for the correct use of zoologically relevant species designations for our domestic and laboratory animals, with reference to the current nomenclature of their breed types][Article in German]


Meyer W, Bartels T, Neurand K.
Institut für Zoologie, Tierärztlichen Hochschule Hannover.

This study is concerned with the correct use of the scientific zoological nomenclature for domesticated and laboratory animals. With the help of four tables, additionally, the most current latin names of all important domesticated animals (animals of economic importance, ranch-bred animals, companion animals, fancy animals, laboratory animals) are given. The authors suggest a formal nomenclature for domesticated animals which should principally be related to the scientific name of the parent species (binomially and in italics), as always followed by the completion "forma domestica/f. dom." (not in italics). Problems arising from the use of such scientific names when hybridization and introgression is concerned are also discussed, and appropriate nomenclature is proposed.

PMID: 8316817 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

I couldn't get the entire PDF but simply put our animals would be Eublepahris macularius "forma domestica/f. dom." but I'll also talk to my taxonomist friend to confirm.

 

[crotaphytidae]

Sorry, this is also only relevant if the animals are not hybridze as the abstract point out.

 

[paulnj]

As far as this sub-species craze that seems to be going on, I feel it is mostly hype... Honestly, I see very little (if any at all) difference in these so called subspecies compared to normalish looking CBB leos here in the States and Europe.

Gregg,

I respect your input alot as it's quite valid and you are definately no dummy :main_laugh:

But I have to say that afghanicus crosses and fasciolatus crosses definately have a distinct look to me, or atleast those I have seen and produced do.

 

[SaSobek]

But I have to say that afghanicus crosses and fasciolatus crosses definately have a distinct look to me, or atleast those I have seen and produced do.

Yep, I agree with paul. When you have them you can see they are different. again that is just my oppinion. :main_lipsrsealed: Good luck with the taxonomy.

 

[Golden Gate Geckos]

the most current latin names of all important domesticated animals (animals of economic importance, ranch-bred animals, companion animals, fancy animals, laboratory animals) are given. The authors suggest a formal nomenclature for domesticated animals which should principally be related to the scientific name of the parent species (binomially and in italics), as always followed by the completion "forma domestica/f. dom." (not in italics).

The problem with this as I see it is, that leopard geckos are NOT domesticated animals... regardless of how we feel about them.

I also agree that the various sub-species/localities definitely do have a very distinct appearance and body structure. I just cannot put my 100% trust in the Middle-Eastern sources for W/C geckos. I can only imagine an open-air market in Pakistan with turban-clad sales people with buckets of wild caught leopard geckos telling prospective buyers anything they want to hear about where the geckos were collected... much less what sub-specie or locality they are!

 

[DAWNoftheLEO]

Gregg,

I respect your input alot as it's quite valid and you are definately no dummy :main_laugh:

But I have to say that afghanicus crosses and fasciolatus crosses definately have a distinct look to me, or atleast those I have seen and produced do.

YEP!

 

[crotaphytidae]

I'd have to agree that the sources of the wild caught geckos need to be questioned.

The geckos that we have aren't entirely domesticated but they are in my opinion considered "fancy" and they would also fall under the specifications in the paper.

I really like this discussion, and appreciate that people are debating their opinions and not getting into heated arguements. This is the only way we can learn and grow as people and a hobby. Thanks everyone for your input and keep it up. :main_thumbsup:

 

[lampeye]

As a biologist, some words on "home grown" organisms.

Slapping a name on a man-made (a term we can agree on on since, oddly, "domesticated" is raising some hackles) strain of organism is no big sin. "Domesticus" would be incorrect for the simple reason that giving a Latin designation to such strains is against the rules of nomenclature. But slapping "enigma," "blizzard," etc on the end would be just fine, even as more than just a marketing ploy: If there were a consensus, it would parallell what one sees with plant cultivars. In other words, the whole of the problem is that little "us" at the end.

I always find it entertaining how different hobbies attempt to find different solutions to the same issue. If we take killifish hobbyists as an example, fish without locality data are not as valuable as those that do have it. Example: Aphyosemion striatum "Lamberene" and A. striatum "Cape Esterias." One would certainly not mix these pops intentionally. If one did, or came into posession of A. striatum without provenance, then the resulting offspring would have to be labeled as "aquarium strain." One solution.

In the bromeliad hobby, growers often (maddeningly, to me, sometimes)opt out of the use locality notation with the alternative of cultivar names. An example would be Cryptanthus lacerdae "Menescal." I believe Menescal refers to the nursery that put this form on the market. As its growth habit is notably different from plain ol' lacerdae, it would be great to know the geographic origin, but such is life. Or look at a wide-ranging species like Tillandsia ionantha: You have "Peanut" "Hand-Grenade," "Fuego," and a host of others. Some are locality specific, some arose in cultivation. Little distinction is made between the two. A second solution.

Of the two, I lean towards the second, as frustrating as that can be. As Steven Hammer, the renowned succulent grower/collector/discoverer once pointed out, the second you decide to collect a plant in habitat because of its appearance of vigor, you're already well on the way to "cultivarhood." It's safe to say that the same applies to animals as well. In fact, taking a close look, the distinction between the two methods all but vanishes.

 

[SaSobek]

wow thanks

 

[crotaphytidae]

I really like that explination, Thank you.