In Breeding

[gregmonsta]

Are there still people finding infernalis influence in some of the European lines?

I don't ask in any sort of accusatory way but out of personal curiousity. A few years back there was more talk of it but I haven't seen it brought up recently.

Can of worms time for the sake of debate, of course.

Well ... there's a point of debate even prior to the introduction of infernalis into the captive tetrataenia genepool.

Do we see them as a distinct sub-species or a locality specific morph in isolation from the infernalis genepool? After all, they have been de-classified and re-classified and debated about as they stand in the wild.

I'm happy to treat them as a separate species as they are currently classified but you can see where some of the cross-breeding in Europe is a moot point. Considering even Rossman's offering came at a time when tetrataenia were assimilated into infernalis.

In captivity:
First of all - some lines are trace-able, some are not. Some breeders that have done this can be named, and again some can not. The fact is that this could even have happend in one of the zoos at some point. I do know for a fact that that this was dabbled with in the British genepool and I have even come across people on British forums whose prime intention, as I found out, was to do more of the same (discovered in response to me trying to give advice on how best to proceed with their tetrataenia project) inspired simply by the fact that it had been done before.
Another issue is that we have also seen 'pure' infernalis produce offspring with the tetrataenia phenotype. So are both lines polluted? or is this proof of a morph?

But, like yourself, I haven't heard anything new on the subject for a while ... and I'll re-state that I'm in favour of tetrataenia remaining a separate entity as it stands

[SilasBannook]

Can of worms time for the sake of debate, of course.

Well ... there's a point of debate even prior to the introduction of infernalis into the captive tetrataenia genepool.

Do we see them as a distinct sub-species or a locality specific morph in isolation from the infernalis genepool? After all, they have been de-classified and re-classified and debated about as they stand in the wild.

Another issue is that we have also seen 'pure' infernalis produce offspring with the tetrataenia phenotype. So are both lines polluted? or is this proof of a morph?

Gregmonsta,
I found your comment about having seen 'pure' infernalis produce tetrataenia-like offspring surprising. As I have two infernalis garters I plan to breed I was interested and concerned in knowing if that could happen to my snakes (being in the US having an endangered species at home wouldn't be ideal). Anyway, I looked for other reports backing that statement and only found that in the 2005 Endangered Species report for the San Francisco Garter Snake it was believed that integration of infernalis and tetrataenia wasn't very likely as the integrade zones studied had remained healthy and distinct for numerous years (http://www.fws.gov/cno/es/San Franci...view.FINAL.pdf).
Could you help me find a report or two of infernalis producing tetrataenia babies?

I did find one report of an infernalis having a tetraenia baby but the mother was mated with a tetraenia in captivity (Alan's Garter Snakes - My Collection). Would be interested in seeing reporting of tetraenia babies from a mating of two infernalis snakes.

Thanks.