Leachianus leachianus and henkeli locals all the same ?

[Peter]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gilpin

I just know that some are very limited, and there's no way around crossing the different locales if you intend to keep any of the very limited locality specific animals genes available. ( that actually made sense while I was typing it, let me know if you're confused, haha )

No, it makes sense. Personally I yield to the fact that cross-breeding is inevitable for the preservation of the existing CB gene pools.

[Terri]

Originally Posted by Peter K

I apologize for my lack of knowledge in this matter. I didn't realize that the problem was this severe.

Are there any loopholes in CITES or New Caledonia laws where it would be possible to futher collect locale specific animals which could then be given to the experienced breeders in Europe and the US to be used infuse fresh genetics in the existing lines? Would this be a viable option to the problem?
Or is this being done already?

I think that the environmental stresses of some of the native populations from ants and rats in part has probably hastened the demise of some of these tiny pockets of certain locales so that even if more collection were allowed, there may be nothing left to collect.
Also, I can see a huge difference between crossing locales because that's what one has at hand (to "produce" for the sake of producing) and crossing locales that careful study has suggested will strengthen the breed and add to the vigor of remaining lines.
I often ponder these things when I gaze into the eyes of my tilted-irised Nuu Ana female, Anna. I'm looking forward to reading the relevant thread Andrew posted from another site if I live long enough reading with my pokey dial-up access at home tonight.

[xeon452]

I just recently purchased a nuu ami from Philippe and he told me about how he had two of the only four originally collected nuu Amies, with Frank fast owning the other two. I would love to buy another nuu ami from fast to unsure that the lines are pure and from unrelated pairs. But as for other breeders who say they have this or that locale they can not really be sure of them or lying to get a sell. I say if you have the proof then go for it, but when buying you can't be sure of what locale you are really getting or if it's a mix.

And if you are trying to prove your locale by DNA, then that is even hard since their genetics are so alike and similar you could be getting mixed readings. That is if you have pure locale DNA to compare to.

I wouldn't have to say the mixing and inbreeding at this point is inevitable and in a way unavoidable since most of the rarer specimens are already extinct or darn close to being in the wild... darn them ants and rats!!!!!!

And some of the mixes are spectacular in color and size!!!!!

[Andrew Gilpin]

One more thing, I just noticed a comment about CITES, and just wanted to say technically Rhacodactylus isn't on CITES, there just isn't any exportation or collecting permitted, just like in New Zealand and Australia. For a current CITES list take a look here
http://www.cites.org/eng/app/appendices.shtml
Geckos are about 2/3 of the way down the page, and this is all that is listed as of June 2006

Gekkonidae Geckos
Cyrtodactylus serpensinsula
Hoplodactylus spp. (New Zealand)
Naultinus spp. (New Zealand)
Phelsuma spp.
Uroplatus spp.

[jaspersail]

In addition to the geckosunlimited discussion, there was a long thread on this topic last month on the Pangea site. You can read it here if interested: http://www.pangeareptile.com/forums/...ead.php?t=1184.

For some reason, this discussion always turns to dogs!

--John

[Philippe deVosjoli]

I talked about this topic at the symposium. Here are things to consider:

1) Grande Terre Type A, Mt Koghis, and Type C are distinct enough from henkeli that at least herpetoculturists should retain the subspecies leachianus when describing them. A biological species concept even though it has bcome replaced by an evolutionary species one is what from a practical standpoint interests herpetoculturists. As I mentioned both sexes of mature forms of some henkeli cannot readily interbreed with mature Grande Terre. You need to target a size window (ealry sexual onset) where this can occur.

2) We should establish standards for morphotypes based on original locale morphotype. This would allow breeders to outbreed then breed back toward a morphotype standard. Without standards how can you really know whether an animal is accurately represented. Standards will also allow us to establish new breeds derived from outcrossing and line breeding.

3) Few specimens of Grande Terre and most of the island forms were collected. The Yate Grande Terre line originated with 3-4 animals of which two were female. Most captive island morphotypes are descended from only four pairs per island. Yes, I think we should be concerned about eventual inbreeding problems.

4) Most opposed to crossbreeding animals are against hybridizing. Here we are talking about morphotypes. Note that most dog breeds were the result of crossbreeding morphotypes. Breeds types are maintained only with standards.

5) Few more leachianus are likely to be allowed out of NC and captive population are unlikely to ever serve to repopulate habitats so degraded that they couldn't sustain the existing populations. The main reason for breeding these is to establish them in human societies and to conserve the possibility of humans directly experiencing these species. That is the primary goal of herpetoculture.

6) Leachianus are destined to become a herpetocultural field which, as with other successful fields, will strive for vigor, beauty, high public appeal and high value.

[Peter]

Originally Posted by Philippe de Vosjoli

2) We should establish standards for morphotypes based on original locale morphotype. This would allow breeders to outbreed then breed back toward a morphotype standard. Without standards how can you really know whether an animal is accurately represented. Standards will also allow us to establish new breeds derived from outcrossing and line breeding.

This is a very interesting point. Could you elaborate further on how these standards can be developed and established for each morphotype, i.e., traits that would be used as reference or benchmarks?

[chahoua]

Personally I am against mixing the locales. I too agree that while it is still possible we have a duty as captive keepers to keep things as they would be found in nature (ie. in the wild). I would hate for leachianus to go down the same road as leopard geckos with all the morphs available today.

[Allen Repashy]

Philippe's idea is really the best one for the long term success of keeping the morphotypes alive in captivity. If we look at the offspring from even pure localities, there is a variation that can overlap with the offspring of another local. if you know statistics, there is a "standard deviation" factor. Most of the offspring from a local will have similar traits, but there will be a percentage that are outside of the curve. If these individuals are bred into the captive locality population, they will change the "look" of even the pure locality specimens.

As Philippe said... even with dogs for example, it is breed standards that keep German Shepherds looking the same, not just that fact that only German Shepherds are used to breed them. In ten generations, you could take pure pedigreed German Shepherd offspring, and produce something that doesn't look like a classic German Shepherd anymore if you weren't paying attention to the breed standards.

So what I am saying, is that even by breeding locality specific animals, if we don't have a "locality standard", in a matter of generations, our locality specific and pure animals will not accurately represent what is found in nature.

If we look and Pine Island and Moro for example, we can see certain traits that are more prevalent in one population over another, but there are definitely animals produced from each locality that share traits, and could not be discerned as to where they were from.... So if we take the traits that ARE different about these localities, and use this as a "locality standard" we can produce two types of gecko that are different looking, and best represent the differences that do exist. If a Moro gecko offspring shows classic Pine Island traits, then cross breeding this animal to the Pine island stock will increase genetic diversity as well as help produce two different looking lines...... Does this make sense to anyone?

I know people hate the dog comparison, but it really is applicable here. Dogs are genetically the same species, but breeds look different because we made them that way. Leachianus look different because of geographic isolation, but have not been isolated long enough to be genetically different.

If we use "locality standards", then breeding type A and type B, or Type A and "henkeli" together would not be something that one would want to do to fix "locality types" .... So it does not promote crossing of all leachianus. Just the ones that have "trait overlap" such as the various island morphs.

Many of these islands are close to each other and pine island, and it is not difficult to assume that there is occasional movement of geckos via rafting during storms that can change the "look" of a population from decade to decade. The populations on some islands are small enough, that a single introduced male, could change the look of the whole population in a matter of generations......

If we look at selective breeding as creating our own new "locality standard" Then someone could create their own "Island" by selecting traits from the available gene pool and creating their own goals. I can look at my snowflake line as "Island Allen" and take all the high pink and white offspring from various other "locality types" to produce my own "Island Allen Locality Type Standards"

So if we look at creating your own selectively produced line as creating your own Island, it makes sense. "locality standards" will allow us to keep island localities "pure" by description, while allowing greater genetic diversity.

The work of Aaron Bauer has shown that the genetic difference is very small. Captive breeding has shown thet there is a great morphological variation within even the locality specific populations. So even if we breed locality "pure" lines only, we are not going to end up with the same animals we see in nature unless we set "locality standards"

So what is more important.. Keeping genetics pure from a limited genepool of a population, even though the animals will stop looking like what they do in nature because of inbreeding and human selection within that line..... Or breeding for the "locality standard" differences we see in nature, using a wider genepool..... ?

We must remember, that Aaron has proved there is no significant genetic difference.. So that means the only difference is morphological (visual and structural). So if we are not breeding fro these visual differences, and setting a standard for them.....and instead breeding for genetic differences which aren't even there, WTF are we thinking?

I am not talking about widespread panic and crossing of lines, I am talking about the introction of outside localities that meet "type standards"
And of course none of this means anything if these standards are not developed and accepted by the main breeders.

Food for thought, Allen

[Luc]

Wow that was strange allen's message changed while i was reading it. So I hope someon'e is going to start with setting these standards. Very interesting is the fact that over here in europe people are working with one local( mount koghis region) that has two morphotypes the normal type (type B ?) and the darkmorphs. So philip if you read this pleade empty your mail box because I was trying to send you some high resolution pic's from both morphs so you could compare head scallation. The funny thing is I recently bought a babie type B that looks almost the same as a dark morph hatchling while it's clutch mate was pale.