Some factual errors here.
There is a world of difference between intraspecific hybridization, and interspecific hybridization. Hybridization between different populations of a given species may have either no impact on genetic fitness, or even enhance it due to hybrid vigor. Hybridization between different subspecies of a given species may reduce fitness if they are from very different environments (cold vs. warm, etc.), but again, fertility is usually unaffected, and may even be enhanced. In contrast, hybridization between species almost always reduces fertility, and can lead to sterility. Moreover, depending on the genetic distance, it can also lead to chronic or lethal health problems. All the different types of wildcat out there belong to a single species (Felis sylvestris), and so are able to form fully fertile offspring. Moreover, different populations and subspecies in many species are known to form zones of intergradation in the wild, where you find animals of intermediate phenotype because the two groups are naturally hybridizing on their own. Mixing them in captivity is not very different from this situation. In contrast, that is very different from the situation with lepracuttas, whose parent species (sulcata and leopard tortoise) have been isolated from each other for many millions of years.
NOTE: There are a few intergeneric hybrid cats out there in the pet trade. The Bengal cat, for example, is a hybrid of the house cat (Felis sylvestris) and the Asian leopard cat (Prionailurus bengalensis). As with many such hybrids, there are problems with fertility. Females may be fertile, but males are usually sterile (Haldane's Rule). Again, I disapprove of this cross, too.
Nobody ever said the planet would stop turning if you breed interspecific hybrids. The point is interspecific hybridization in the pet trade is bad for the animals.
Dogs are, with few exceptions, domesticated wolves (Canis lupus). Occasionally they have been known to hybridize with coyotes (C. latrans), and the more distantly related golden jackal (C. aureus). Northeastern wolves and coyotes have been found to have wild and domestic wolf (dog) ancestry mixed with coyote, and the southeastern red wolf has been found to be of wolf/coyote hybrid origin as well. One of the few types of captive dog known to be of interspecific origin is the Sulimov dog, which was methodically bred as an airport security sniffing dog. Other than that, the odds that "Fido," as you say, is anything but a domestic wolf, are extremely small.
Yes, heterosis (hybrid vigor) can be the result of cross-breeding, and it can make valuable intraspecific crosses when the offspring are fertile. Mules are famously sterile intraspecific hybrids with heterosis, which I grant may be valuable since horses and donkeys are not endangered species, and the resulting mules are healthy and valuable as work animals. But why in the heck would anyone want to breed endangered reptiles in this way? For the aesthetics? For the money? Neither reason is sufficient justification for this practice.
I likewise disapprove of breeding albino animals, as well as highly altered animals with pushed-in noses, shortened limbs, etc. It's not good for the animals.
While I certainly never call any living being "trash," and I don't think condemning hybridization is purely a matter of opinion. Fact: hybrids often have reduced fertility, and often lack the adaptations of their parent species. Therefore, they have reduced conservation value. This is not a matter of taste. This is a matter of priorities.
I disagree. What if someone told you about an abused dog in a shelter? Would you tell him, "If you don't like it, don't buy it." No, you would say, "It is wrong to abuse animals, and if you cannot care for the abused dog, at least report it to the officials." I hasten to add that, I don't think breeding interspecific (and even intergeneric) hybrid animals is as bad as beating animals. However, I do think it is a form of cruelty to bring animals into this world, knowing ahead of time that they may have problems with fertility or health. Distant hybridization may be viewed as a form of genetic infirmity, right along with albinism and dwarfism. And while animals with genetic infirmity deserve ethical treatment as much as those without, we should nevertheless make efforts to avoid bringing about their infirmity, not willfully perpetuating it.
It amazes me how much people can sell their hybrids and other anomalous animals for, when really the customer is buying damaged goods. Albinos and leucistic animals cost a lot more than pigmented animals, and yet they are at greater likelihood of blindness, deafness, and other problems. When people put two-headed snakes and turtles up for sale, the animals are snapped up very quickly ... even though they will probably die before reaching adulthood. Similarly, short-faced dogs and cats tend to snore, and short-legged dogs (and now cats, too) are likely to develop back problems. And then there's the increased risk of aggression, disability, and cancer with inbreeding. Similarly, when you're buying a hybrid, you're basically agreeing to pay more for a sterile animal, and perhaps agreeing to pay more for an animal with malformed internal organs, too. Why? For the looks? For the novelty? I don't think this is a good choice.
N2TORTS said:The writer is blissfully unaware that this cherished pet is most likely a descendant of an intra-specific hybrid, a cross between the African Wild Cat and the Asian Wild Cat.
There is a world of difference between intraspecific hybridization, and interspecific hybridization. Hybridization between different populations of a given species may have either no impact on genetic fitness, or even enhance it due to hybrid vigor. Hybridization between different subspecies of a given species may reduce fitness if they are from very different environments (cold vs. warm, etc.), but again, fertility is usually unaffected, and may even be enhanced. In contrast, hybridization between species almost always reduces fertility, and can lead to sterility. Moreover, depending on the genetic distance, it can also lead to chronic or lethal health problems. All the different types of wildcat out there belong to a single species (Felis sylvestris), and so are able to form fully fertile offspring. Moreover, different populations and subspecies in many species are known to form zones of intergradation in the wild, where you find animals of intermediate phenotype because the two groups are naturally hybridizing on their own. Mixing them in captivity is not very different from this situation. In contrast, that is very different from the situation with lepracuttas, whose parent species (sulcata and leopard tortoise) have been isolated from each other for many millions of years.
NOTE: There are a few intergeneric hybrid cats out there in the pet trade. The Bengal cat, for example, is a hybrid of the house cat (Felis sylvestris) and the Asian leopard cat (Prionailurus bengalensis). As with many such hybrids, there are problems with fertility. Females may be fertile, but males are usually sterile (Haldane's Rule). Again, I disapprove of this cross, too.
In any event, all of this would have taken place thousands of years ago and the world is still turning.
Nobody ever said the planet would stop turning if you breed interspecific hybrids. The point is interspecific hybridization in the pet trade is bad for the animals.
Yet no dog-lover would ever consider abandoning Fido simply because he's not 100% pure Wolf!
Dogs are, with few exceptions, domesticated wolves (Canis lupus). Occasionally they have been known to hybridize with coyotes (C. latrans), and the more distantly related golden jackal (C. aureus). Northeastern wolves and coyotes have been found to have wild and domestic wolf (dog) ancestry mixed with coyote, and the southeastern red wolf has been found to be of wolf/coyote hybrid origin as well. One of the few types of captive dog known to be of interspecific origin is the Sulimov dog, which was methodically bred as an airport security sniffing dog. Other than that, the odds that "Fido," as you say, is anything but a domestic wolf, are extremely small.
Hybridization between cultivars or varieties is often used in agriculture to obtain greater vigor or growth (heterosis). The first generation often shows greatly increased vigor and a better yield primarily because many genes for recessive, often deleterious, traits from one parent are masked by corresponding dominant genes in the other parent. Many of the hybrid reptiles produced in today's marketplace also show the positive effects of hybrid vigor. Larger babies, with stronger feeding responses, are often produced.
Yes, heterosis (hybrid vigor) can be the result of cross-breeding, and it can make valuable intraspecific crosses when the offspring are fertile. Mules are famously sterile intraspecific hybrids with heterosis, which I grant may be valuable since horses and donkeys are not endangered species, and the resulting mules are healthy and valuable as work animals. But why in the heck would anyone want to breed endangered reptiles in this way? For the aesthetics? For the money? Neither reason is sufficient justification for this practice.
One of the first projects along these lines was the use of albino Ruthven's Kingsnakes to introduce the albino gene to the closely related Gray Banded Kingsnake . By carefully selecting the resulting offspring for appearance similar to the Gray Banded Kingsnake, breeders were able to produce albino specimens nearly identical to pure Gray Banded Kingsnakes.
I likewise disapprove of breeding albino animals, as well as highly altered animals with pushed-in noses, shortened limbs, etc. It's not good for the animals.
"Hybrids are trash". Yeah, whatever...... Sharing such a factually presented opinion carries zero weight with anybody. You should have joined the high school debate team, you might have learned a thing or two about presenting your point. Foreign car enthusiasts have been saying bad things about domestic vehicles for years now, and vice versa. Come to think of it, so have Ford vs. Chevy owners. Guess what: Nobody cares about your sticker showing some kid wearing a Ford shirt urinating on a Chevy when they are shopping for a new vehicle. There's millions of happy owners of all these brands of vehicles.
While I certainly never call any living being "trash," and I don't think condemning hybridization is purely a matter of opinion. Fact: hybrids often have reduced fertility, and often lack the adaptations of their parent species. Therefore, they have reduced conservation value. This is not a matter of taste. This is a matter of priorities.
Moral of the story: If you don't like it don't buy it. This is America and that's your freedom of choice. So is expressing your opinion, just try not to sound like an idiot or waste other people's time when doing so….
I disagree. What if someone told you about an abused dog in a shelter? Would you tell him, "If you don't like it, don't buy it." No, you would say, "It is wrong to abuse animals, and if you cannot care for the abused dog, at least report it to the officials." I hasten to add that, I don't think breeding interspecific (and even intergeneric) hybrid animals is as bad as beating animals. However, I do think it is a form of cruelty to bring animals into this world, knowing ahead of time that they may have problems with fertility or health. Distant hybridization may be viewed as a form of genetic infirmity, right along with albinism and dwarfism. And while animals with genetic infirmity deserve ethical treatment as much as those without, we should nevertheless make efforts to avoid bringing about their infirmity, not willfully perpetuating it.
It amazes me how much people can sell their hybrids and other anomalous animals for, when really the customer is buying damaged goods. Albinos and leucistic animals cost a lot more than pigmented animals, and yet they are at greater likelihood of blindness, deafness, and other problems. When people put two-headed snakes and turtles up for sale, the animals are snapped up very quickly ... even though they will probably die before reaching adulthood. Similarly, short-faced dogs and cats tend to snore, and short-legged dogs (and now cats, too) are likely to develop back problems. And then there's the increased risk of aggression, disability, and cancer with inbreeding. Similarly, when you're buying a hybrid, you're basically agreeing to pay more for a sterile animal, and perhaps agreeing to pay more for an animal with malformed internal organs, too. Why? For the looks? For the novelty? I don't think this is a good choice.