Is the eastern tiger salamander the largest species?

[John]

I don't know where to start. So I won't. Good luck to you. Just try not to stir the pot much more.

 

[Vesp]

If they are hybridized:
1. Tiger salamanders will still exist
2. Axolotls will still exist.
3. It will decrease terrestrial tiger salamanders from being taken from the wild, as some of the offspring from neotenic salamanders will morph. What is better? taking them from the wild, or keeping the captives captive, and breeding them in captivity?

4. It has already been done, and that is how we have Albino Axolotls. Read: Albino Axolotls from an Albino Tiger Salamander through Hybridization. (No where does it suggest they were continually bred back to be more and more like the axolotl by breeding with additional, non-albino non-hybrid axolotls)

Yes, I realize many people do not want anything but the wildtype, and purely wild genetics of both the tiger salamander and the axolotl - however, I suspect with the popularity of Albino, Luestic, Copper, Golden, etc axolotls people like color variation. Perhaps not conservationists, but others do! As stated earlier I think it will increase demand, interest, and help wild populations of salamanders to produce such a hybrid.

If anything, it might "muddy" up the captive Axolotls genetics -- but given that they are already muddied up from previous tiger salamander hybridization, in addition to selective breeding - I don't see why that matters much.
Read: Evolutionary genetics of metamorphic failure using wild-
caught vs. laboratory axolotls (Ambystoma mexicanum)
Blackwell Science, Ltd
S . R . V O S S * and H . B . S H A F F E R †
*Department of Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA, †Section of Evolution and Ecology and Center for
Population Biology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA

Here is the Abstract from it:

Abstract
In many organisms metamorphosis allows for an ecologically important habitat-shift from
water to land. However, in some salamanders an adaptive life cycle mode has evolved
that is characterized by metamorphic failure (paedomorphosis); these species remain in
the aquatic habitat throughout the life cycle. Perhaps the most famous example of meta-
morphic failure is the Mexican axolotl (Ambystoma mexicanum), which has become a
focal species for developmental biology since it was introduced into laboratory culture in
the 1800s. Our previous genetic linkage mapping analysis, using an interspecific crossing
design, demonstrated that a major gene effect underlies the expression of metamorphic
failure in laboratory stocks of the Mexican axolotl. Here, we repeated this experiment using
A. mexicanum that were sampled directly from their natural habitat at Lake Xochimilco,
Mexico. We found no significant association between the major gene and metamorphic
failure when wild-caught axolotls were used in the experimental design, although there
is evidence of a smaller genetic effect. Thus, there appears to be genetic variation among
Mexican axolotls (and possibly A. tigrinum tigrinum) at loci that contribute to metamorphic
failure. This result suggests a role for more than one mutation and possibly artificial selection
in the evolution of the major gene effect in the laboratory Mexican axolotl.

If you believe your pet Axolotl is just like the wild axolotls you'd like to conserve, you're close, but not entirely correct.

This is also clearly what is happening to the Anderson's salamander:
Sometimes they morph, sometimes they do not morph. The ones that morph, and thus have the morphing genes, are not bred, as it is difficult to breed terrestrial tiger salamanders.
The ones that are not able to morph, continue to breed in captivity - eventually, the captive Anderson's salamanders will ONLY be neotenic because of this unintentional selective breeding, and just like the captive vs wild axolotls -- will show genetic differences, and selective breeding problems and additional loss of metamorphic abilities.

Additionally, we all know the pet axolotls are inbred compared to their wild counter parts since huge bottle necking comes about from breeding so many of them from such a small sample population. Many captives likely have tons of homologous genes that would not occur in nature.

Personally, I feel it is important to make a distinction between the wild Axolotls, and the captive axolotls. I would propose calling the wild one Ambystoma Mexicanum, and the captive one Ambystoma Domestica. Or, perhaps Ambystoma Mexicanum familiaris.

The definition of domestication is the following:

Domestication (from Latin domesticus) is the process where by a population of animals or plants is changed at the genetic level through a process of selection, in order to accentuate traits that benefit humans.

And, as shown above the captive axolotl has had additional mutations, and selective breeding to make them less likely to morph - making them easier for humans to breed, sell, keep as pets and so on. I believe they fit the very definition of domesticated.

Yes, they can indeed breed with the wild axolotls, and other species of tiger salamanders -- but domesticated dogs can breed with their wild counterpart, the wolf. Wolfdog - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Vesp]

I don't know where to start. So I won't. Good luck to you. Just try not to stir the pot much more.

Well. I am going to share my views, and opinions, and articles I have read about it.
I am not intentionally trying to upset people - just create good discussion.
I think you'll find, especially if you have chat logs, I am not the one insulting people with different opinions than my own.

Thank you John! I realize we likely don't fully agree or see eye to eye, but I do appreciate it when people handle themselves well, and wish others luck.

Also, I would like to add, as I forgot to in my last post...

Here is the method on how to produce hybrid offspring via hormones: Collection of gametes from live axolotl, Ambystoma mexicanum,
and standardization of in vitro fertilization
N. Mansour1,*, F. Lahnsteiner, R.A. Patzner
Department of Organismic Biology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Salzburg, Hellbrunnerstr. 34, 5020-Salzburg, Austria
Received 26 April 2010; received in revised form 30 August 2010; accepted 9 September 2010


After contacting a few people:
1. Tiger Salamander, plus shipping: $71
2. My Three 5 to 7 inch, Wild-Type Axolotls: $64 (Already have them, not sure how many are female, likely at least one)
3. Ovopel: 0.53 US per pellet, plus shipping (1/4 and 1/2 pellets are needed for inducing games of male, and females respectively if fairly large in size)
4. Ovaprim - similar to Ovopel in ingredients and function, $35 for 10ml + shipping.

$71 + $64 + ~$100 to $200 for hormones, syringes, filters, food, water treatment, housing, timers, etc...

Price of project: ~$300 dollars.

I will be posting info on how I am going to do it exactly, all my references, and other info/ideas/questions in the future, in another thread for those of you interested in following my project, or doing this yourself in the future.

 

[Kaysie]

If you want to decrease tigers being taken from the wild, why not just breed tiger salamanders? You're obviously thinking you'll succeed with this (I have my doubts, do you know how many people have successfully bred tiger salamanders?), so what's the point in going through all the trouble of getting tigers to breed, just to hybridize them with another animal?

You can increase interest without diluting genes. Axolotls are simple to breed; it's nothing to create new lines of colors by just pairing interesting adults. It makes no sense to muddy up genetics by hybridizing animals.

Albino animals arise from simple mutations. Not all albino axolotls are from a tiger hybridization.

 

[Azhael]

Oh, goody, a discussion.
I will go ahead and say that i don´t necessarily have a problem with creating hybrids for the pet-trade, but only if certain requirements are met. The two simplest ones are that the hybrid animals are not sold as something they are not, and that playing with the genetics of a population can´t justify breeding for deleterious characteristics.
"Axolotls" as they currently exist in the hobby are already of uncertain genetics. That to me is unfortunate but not a particularly worrying situation. What worries me is that domestic axolotls are also suffering uncontrolled amounts of inbreeding and that they are being selected for deleterious characteristics because they are profitable.
By creating hybrids between these two species and as you say, introducing mutations into the "tiger salamander" captive gene-pool, you would be spreading deleterious mutations into that new gene-pool. This cannot reallistically be presented as good or even moral. It´s wrong that it´s happening with domestic axolotls, and it would be wrong to do it tiger salamanders too.

In respect to your first point, it´s not at all relevant. I´m sure you know that in scientific research, when dealing with animal experimentation there is a strict ethical code that has to be met. While i´m not saying that what you plan to do is in anyway scientific, when dealing with ethical issues regarding animals, research regulations are a good starting point. If you were proposing this in a research context, saying that you always wanted a neotenic tiger salamander or that "it will be neat" will get you nothing. I personally think it gets you nothing in the context of the hobby, either.
Furthermore it is unethical to just mess with genetics when you are dealing with a species that is sentient to some extent and is capable of suffering.

If you bred a tiger salamander and an axolotl i expect you would get a pretty homogeneus result in the probability of morphing of the offspring. Only when you crossed them back to the parental lines would i expect to hypothetically see that 25% terrestrial offspring you speak off. That´d be if differential metamorphosis was regulated by a single gene which is not likely.

By the way, neotenic tiger salamanders already exist, naturally. If that´s all you want, you could acquire that instead of messing with the genetics of animals.

As i´ve already said i agree up to a point that conservation and the hobby are not the same thing and that what matters in one may not matter in the other. However, as i also said earlier, that doesn´t mean we can do everything and anything to captive populations because conserving their genetic uniqueness is not important. Even though they are captive you still have an ethical obligation to guarantee their health and well-being, and this not only includes housing and diet, but also breeding strategies.

Your point about what a species "is" is a very complicated subject. The concept of species is an artifitial construct that we use by necessity to try to use language to describe an aspect of the natural world. It, however, does not reflect reality in that it is a discrete concept applied to a continuum. Using the concept of species to apply only to populations that can interbreed is simply not useful. The hability to interbreed is a complex phenomenon that does not imply a fixed amount of relatedness. Two populations could be extremely close and yet reproductively incompatible (like a new species of plant arising from polyploidy), thus making them two separate species by your definition. The same way, two distinct and discrete populations which don´t interbreed naturally, could be reproductively compatible (like ball pythons and carpet pythons).
There are many other situations in which the concept of species becomes very cloudy and nearly meaningless but that is the reality of the restrictions of language.
I´m thoroughly confused as to what you meant with your commentary about africans and asians but all human populations are considered a single species (and a single subspecies too) because we are unnusually uniform in our genetics, with a clinal distribution and with the vast majority of the genetic variations found inside groups rather than between groups. I´m no expert on tiger salamander genetics and as i understand it, it´s extremely confusing, but as far as i know they don´t represent the same case as what we find in humans, and definitely not if you include axolotls in there.

In the case of the californian tiger salamander, the price to pay is the loss in biodiversity. While some genes would indeed survive in the hybrid offspring, the original, distinctive population would be lost, and you cannot predict how much of the californian tiger salamander genetics would survive through the generations.
If this was happening naturally, i wouldn´t have an argument against allowing the population sift to happen, but because this is the result of human negligence, i think it´s also our responsability to try and prevent it.

Highways are not the same as rain forests. You are using a definition of natural that is not useful but which is nevertheless correct. Everything that exists in the universe is natural, therefore skyscrapers are natural (it´s still made of atoms). However, there is a distinction that is useful to point out and it is that forests do happen naturally, with no intervention of any agency, while skyscrapers are ONLY the product of agents. This distinction is worth making and that´s why we have the concept of artificial.
You mixing tiger salamanders and axolotls is not the same as they mixing by themselves in nature, because you are a conscious, intelligent agent making that decission for them. Therefore you are responsible and you have an ethical obligation to limit your actions to that which doesn´t cause harm.

I don´t understand what you are talking about when you talk about simbiotic relationships with other species and ecosystems.

On a final note, and i know i repeat myself a lot, and it´s tedious, while you think a lot of good could come from this i don´t think you have seriously considered that a lot of bad could happen too. I have no interest in conserving the domestic axolotl genetics in the sense that you are implying, mainly because there is nothing to conserve anymore and because i care a lot more about their genetic health and well-being than about their "purebred" status. And that´s my point all along, there is a hell of a lot more to consider than just the irrelevancy of domestic axolotl pedigrees or the desire to do something, and unlike those two examples, these other stuff matters.

 

[FrogEyes]

There are a few reasons I'd like to do it, in order from most to least:
1. It will be neat. I've just always wanted to have a neotenic tiger salamander.

They exist in the wild. An alternative would be to obtain neotenic tigers from a natural population. However, neoteny among the various tiger species is not all equal. In some it is obligatory, in some it is facultative. Consequently, hybridizing a facultatively neotenic species such as A.mavortium with a semi-obligatory one such as A.mexicanum, may not achieve the results you intend.

3.(Sell them both as the neotenic type, and the terrestrial hybrids.
4. Breeding a terrestrial tiger salamander with an axolotl will produce both morphing and non-morphing offspring. Two neotenic axolotl/tiger salamanders, I believe will produce about 25% terrestrial salamanders.

See above. I don't think you can really expect this result. The genes involved are not necessarily equivalent. There is research published many decades ago on exactly this subject, but I don't have the documents at my fingertips. It would be worth reviewing.

--> Because we currently can't breed terrestrial tiger salamanders very easily, and people harvest them from the wild. If you have two axolotl/tiger hybrids, some of the offspring will morph creating terrestrial adults that can be sold, with out harming natural populations.

I think there are two overlooked aspects to this: First, the ease of breeding isn't a case of axolotl versus tiger - it's aquatic versus terrestrial. A neotenic tiger can likely be bred more or less as easily as an axolotl, without hybridization. Second, the lack of breeding probably reflects more on a lack of effort. Europeans have bred tigers much more often probably because it's an exotic and hard to get species for them. For North Americans, no-one even tries to breed something that's common and local or cheap to get WC.

Personally, where WC are concerned, I could probably supply the pet trade with hundreds of WC tigers annually, with no significant impact. Why dredge a pond when I can cruise gravel roads at 11pm in the summer and just pick them up off the road [or edge of paved highway for that matter]? Granted, while that might be viable here, I'm sure other regions have much more limited sources. Of course, the most limited sources also tend to be protected.

3. I want to create controversy to help people realize how asinine certain aspects of conservation is. Why do we care about pure inbred axolotls? The genes will continue on through out hybrids, and possibly increase demand and interest as a pet -- this could in turn should cause increased interest in preserving and keeping the wild ones wild and whatever.

I am inclined to agree with this line of thinking. There's nothing natural about most captive axolotls NOW, many of which are already of hybrid origin, and some with addition of jellyfish genes. That said, I don't think this project will actually raise any awareness, since the damage is already there. Old news.

4. I want to create discussion about what a species really is - since IMO an Axolotl, and a Tiger Salamander is the same species. If they can breed, and produce fertile offspring = same species. Just a bit different. its a subspecies. This is analogues to Africans and Asians. Why aren't they considered different species, but various types of tiger salamanders are not? Its just silly.

Simply; neither you, nor most other people, really understand what a "species" is. Likewise the old 'ability to interbreed' argument is a logical fallacy. Plainly put, it's wrong. Yes, INability to interbreed is pretty much a guarantee that organisms are separate species. This isn't a dichotomy though - there are many other possibilities aside from 'inability to interbreed'. These include 'able but poorly fertile', 'able but unwilling', 'able but isolated to different habitats', etc etc. The essence of a species is a more or less unique interbreeding gene pool. It doesn't matter why they don't normally interbreed, only that they don't. In scientific terms, when the null hypothesis is "are distinct species because they are unable to interbreed", the alternative hypothesis must include all other possibilities, which could be phrased "are able to interbreed, but may or may not be distinct species by other criteria".

I would be inclined to make the human comparison myself, but the two situations are not comparable. Salamanders form isolated geographical populations which are frequently adapted to VERY specific microhabitats and largely unable to emigrate to the habitats of sibling species. In a few cases where hybridization occurs, actual hybrids tend to blend back into one parent population or the other, or are restricted to a limited contact zone, their mixed genes being strongly selected against outside the contact zone. There are many excellent studies on introgression, hybridization, and ecological niches of salamanders, which do a great job of illustrating how similar animals, even if they occasionally cross, remain restricted to very specific ranges and habitats. Both Plethodon ouachitae and P.fourchensis are now known to consist of multiple species, each being morphologically distinct and each being restricted to slightly different and specific habitats on adjacent mountains. Amazingly, the climates of five adjacent mountains are measurably different, and each salamander is found ONLY within one of those specific measured areas. This is also true of tigers, in which the western species are found in topographically and climatically diverse regions, where there are huge differences in habitats and lots of opportunity for isolation.

I personally hate that they try to kill the "invasive" tiger salamander and its hybrids from the California tiger. The California tiger salamanders genes are still passed on, and since it is now more fit to survive, there will be more of them, in more places, etc...
Who the hell cares if it now slightly different genetics and different features?

The three species of California tiger have been long isolated from other species and from each other. It is my understanding that beyond the difference in appearances, they are also non-neotenic, occuring as they do in regions where permanent water just was not available. Western tigers [also multiple species, but not in accord with current named boundaries] are often facultatively neotenic, a situation which occurs because their range provides abundant seasonal habitat, but occasional permanent habitats naturally. The fact that hybrids survive better in some areas is likely caused by human modification of the habitats [again, there is a very recent paper on this. For several, google 'california tiger salamander hybrid survival', without quotes].

Allowing continued hybridization could be argued to create something new, unique, and better adapted to the unnatural environment. Contrariwise, it can also be argued to wipe out a unique and distinctive creature specifically adapted to California natural habitats. Either way, once it's gone, it's gone forever. Better to avoid the loss in the first place, than to have to fix it later.

Also, to address the "messing with evolution" thing - I am part of evolution. Its stupid to make this false distinction between nature and human. We evolved just like the salamanders did.

Our highways, as natural as a rain forest.


Me mixing two types of tiger salamanders genetics together is also just as natural.

That's quite a stretch, to say the least.

And it helps form symbiotic relationships with other organisms and other ecosystems. It helps more salamanders propagate their genes, more people learn and experience the science or pet hobby of keeping caudatas.

I can't see that any of these statements are supported in any significant way. They sound good, but they're not backed up by anything. Most of these aspects would better be achieved in other ways which lack the controversial factors.

So much good comes from this in my opinion, and hopefully I can make some money while doing it -- I'd love to hear arguments on why we should try to preserve the inbred genetics of the domesticated "probably can't survive in the wild" Axolotl (Ambystoma domestica), but I have a feeling I will be able to blow them out of the water (the ideas, not the axolotls! ) and probably convince and convert a lot of you that are currently Anti-alteration to being pro-alteration.

The only truth in this is the implication of the unnatural axolotl. The rest...making things worse doesn't make them better, and I doubt you'll convert any points of view on this.

 

[slowfoot]

There are a few reasons I'd like to do it, in order from most to least:
1. It will be neat. I've just always wanted to have a neotenic tiger salamander.

2. I want to try to such a thing - I've always loved the idea of messing around with genetics, evolution, etc.
3.(Sell them both as the neotenic type, and the terrestrial hybrids.
4. Breeding a terrestrial tiger salamander with an axolotl will produce both morphing and non-morphing offspring. Two neotenic axolotl/tiger salamanders, I believe will produce about 25% terrestrial salamanders.
>>> Why is this awesome?
--> Because we currently can't breed terrestrial tiger salamanders very easily, and people harvest them from the wild. If you have two axolotl/tiger hybrids, some of the offspring will morph creating terrestrial adults that can be sold, with out harming natural populations. Additionally, they can and will (if I have much to do with it, I'm not sure how dedicated I am to it just yet) will mix and morph with Albinos, Leutistic, golden, etc giving terrestrial salamanders tons of different looks, increased demand, etc... same with make for many (hopefully) different looking axolotls. This might hopefully make it more favorable to buy a cool GFP pink blotchy tiger salamander instead of taking one out of the wild.

3. I want to create controversy to help people realize how asinine certain aspects of conservation is. Why do we care about pure inbred axolotls? The genes will continue on through out hybrids, and possibly increase demand and interest as a pet -- this could in turn should cause increased interest in preserving and keeping the wild ones wild and whatever.

4. I want to create discussion about what a species really is - since IMO an Axolotl, and a Tiger Salamander is the same species. If they can breed, and produce fertile offspring = same species. Just a bit different. its a subspecies. This is analogues to Africans and Asians. Why aren't they considered different species, but various types of tiger salamanders are not? Its just silly.

I personally hate that they try to kill the "invasive" tiger salamander and its hybrids from the California tiger. The California tiger salamanders genes are still passed on, and since it is now more fit to survive, there will be more of them, in more places, etc...
Who the hell cares if it now slightly different genetics and different features?

Also, to address the "messing with evolution" thing - I am part of evolution. Its stupid to make this false distinction between nature and human. We evolved just like the salamanders did.

Our highways, as natural as a rain forest.


Me mixing two types of tiger salamanders genetics together is also just as natural.
And it helps form symbiotic relationships with other organisms and other ecosystems.
It helps more salamanders propagate their genes, more people learn and experience the science or pet hobby of keeping caudatas.

So much good comes from this in my opinion, and hopefully I can make some money while doing it -- I'd love to hear arguments on why we should try to preserve the inbred genetics of the domesticated "probably can't survive in the wild" Axolotl (Ambystoma domestica), but I have a feeling I will be able to blow them out of the water (the ideas, not the axolotls! ) and probably convince and convert a lot of you that are currently Anti-alteration to being pro-alteration.

As a biologist who happens to love salamanders (and who worked in one of the labs that did the hybridization work), I think this is possibly the most disturbing and ridiculous post I've ever seen on these forums. Unfortunately, I'm too tired and sick to tear it apart right now. If it's still around tomorrow morning I'll give it a shot.

ETA: FrogEyes, you're so polite!

 

[Azhael]

Ok, i may have beaten Frogeyes´to posting first, but his is much better so he wins xD

 

[Vesp]

@Azhael and Frogeyes. Thank you for addressing my posts, instead of making personal attacks like the others. I respect you for that, and I will try to continue discussing our differences - who knows, you might change my mind!

Additionally, Azhael, I suspect we both like discussions, and can stay calm about it using references, etc and not make personal attacks. So I am glad that you are in on this discussion, and I am glad you enjoy discussing such things!

1. In reference to neotenic tiger salamanders - I know they exist in the wild, but they are not easy to get! Especially in my location (northern utah). Especially because this site prohibits trading of wild caught salamanders.

I like the idea of researching out, and trying to make a hybrid, even if I fail - it was a good learning experience for me and yatta yatta yatta.

2.

If you bred a tiger salamander and an axolotl i expect you would get a pretty homogeneus result in the probability of morphing of the offspring. Only when you crossed them back to the parental lines would i expect to hypothetically see that 25% terrestrial offspring you speak off. That´d be if differential metamorphosis was regulated by a single gene which is not likely.

Quote:
3.(Sell them both as the neotenic type, and the terrestrial hybrids.
4. Breeding a terrestrial tiger salamander with an axolotl will produce both morphing and non-morphing offspring. Two neotenic axolotl/tiger salamanders, I believe will produce about 25% terrestrial salamanders.
See above. I don't think you can really expect this result. The genes involved are not necessarily equivalent. There is research published many decades ago on exactly this subject, but I don't have the documents at my fingertips. It would be worth reviewing.

Yes I am wrong about this!

According to a post on here: "Experiments of this degree have been carried out. Although, I must admit that that they are rather old. Nonetheless, R. Humphrey crossed a neotenic A. mexicanum with a A. tigrinum, and all the resulting F1 offspring metamorphosed. F1 species were then crossed with each other and yielded 25% neotenic and 75% metamorphosing offspring. Crossing of the F1 species with orginal A. mexicanum resulted in 50% neotenic and 50% metamorphosing offspring. All of this information indicated that neotentic condition is because of recessive homozygosity at a single locus."

And also the original source:

"The metamorphosis of tigrinum-mexicanwn hy-
brids, and of half of the offspring of the backcross
of the hybrid-grafted male with a white axolotl,
would suggest the action of a single dominant gene
controlling the hormonal mechanism involved-a gene
derived from the tigrinum ancestor. It might be sup-
posed, therefore, that those backcross Fj that
remained unmetamorphosed were homozygous for
the recessive allele of this gene, derived from their
white axolotl ancestor. On this basis, the albino
offspring of these neotenous F% might likewise be
expected to be homozygous for this recessive gene
and remain unmetamorphosed. A few of these
albinos, however, have shown premetamorphic
changes that have apparently stopped short of
metamorphosis, and one has actually completed
transformation. Although metamorphosis does occur
spontaneously in the Mexican axolotl, it is very
infrequent, and there have been no instances of this
phenomenon in several hundred axolotls of the
white strain reared during the past 10 years at
Indiana University. The tendency toward metamor-
phosis in a few of the albinos even though both their
parents are neotenous would therefore appear to be a
consequence of their mixed ancestry. Both parents
are one-fourth A. tigrinum in makeup, and each
contributes a variable number of tigrinum genes to its
albino offspring. These new combinations of tigrinum
genes, even though the postulated dominant gene
determining normal metamorphosis is not included,
may nevertheless occasionally result in a level of
hormone output and metabolic activity conducive to
metamorphosis. The advanced age of the albinos at
metamorphosis, the prolonged period of premeta-
morphic change preceding it, the long delay in
disappearance of the gills and closure of the gill
slits, and the tendency toward abnormal moulting
in the metamorphosed animal, together with the
occasional failure to metamorphose after consider-
able premetamorphic change, lead to the conclusion
that at most the hormones involved barely reach the
threshold requisite to induce metamorphosis."

So that will be more tricky - but perhaps still worth doing, since, after a while it can produce largely neotenic populations. Also, one thing to make note of, as Frogeyes mentioned some varieties of tiger salamanders are neotenic and others are not -- It is not obvious from this article what species they used as it is a pretty old document, and naming has changed, etc.
Certain genes in one variety that is often neotenic might be better off to breed with an axolotl to produce neotenic offspring, vs from the never-neotenic type.


When it comes to species, I agree more with Azhael then I do with Frogeyes - though, I do see where frogeyes is coming from, and mostly also agree with him. - Just don't see why it is such an issue to mix species. That is something I apparently do not understand about conservation - why do we need to keep a pure species, when we can propagate its genes another way? In fact, why do we even need to conserve salamanders in the first place?

My belief of why we ought to conserve salamanders is that humans an potentially benefit from them - I.e learn about how to treat cancer via Axolotl eggs, regenerative medicine, etc.
I suspect others will argue that we should conserve species, and pure breeds of those species for different reasons - but I don't know those arguments. Please enlighten me.


When it comes to me, highways, and skyscrapers being as natural as forest - I am going to hold my grounds on this. I understand what you are saying but I disagree.

However, there is a distinction that is useful to point out and it is that forests do happen naturally, with no intervention of any agency, while skyscrapers are ONLY the product of agents. This distinction is worth making and that´s why we have the concept of artificial.
You mixing tiger salamanders and axolotls is not the same as they mixing by themselves in nature, because you are a conscious, intelligent agent making that decission for them. Therefore you are responsible and you have an ethical obligation to limit your actions to that which doesn´t cause harm.

Read: The Extended Phenotype.... The Extended Phenotype - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Where do beaver dams fall in this situation? Do they happen naturally and so count like a forest? or are they ONLY the products of agents (beavers).
How are they separate from skyscrapers?

because you are a conscious, intelligent agent making that decission for them. Therefore you are responsible and you have an ethical obligation to limit your actions to that which doesn´t cause harm.

This is extremely complicated, as it is fairly vague. We'd really need to get into a hefty discussion about what harm is to a captive tiger salamander. Physical pain? One could argue that the purpose the tiger salamander exists, as a male terrestrial adult is to breed and pass on it's selfish genes, and since it is captive and its vernal pound is not known, it cannot breed and propagate its genes -- as the gene propagating vehicle it is intended to be, it is morally correct to try to induce it to breed!

My goal is to not at all make wimpy, float on it's side and axolotl-tiger hybrid - As stated earlier, I am hoping for hybrid vigor of neotenic tiger salamander/axolotl hybrids.
Perhaps culling would in order for any bad ones -- or they could live out their shorter lives in care?
This is a tricky issue IMO - how do you measure harm? Lack of ability for it to propagate its own genes? shorter lifespan? level of pain received during its life? how hard it was for it to gather food? etc?
Is it from the perspective of just the salamander that I own/created or the ones that would otherwise be collected and sold from the wild, that the terrestrial hybrid types negated?

Personally, I feel like if people can use them as fish bait, whatever I do is not going to be that bad. The terrestrials won't breed unless hormones induce it to do so. The neotenics likely won't be much better or worse off, but may have hybrid vigor, and additional colors as is observed with some other varieties of tiger salamander hybrids.




As for the symbiotic relationship I was talking about was that breeding different colors of these salamanders, and terrestrial vs non-terrestrial will help humans - to either enjoy them, to sell them, etc which will ensure the salamanders population and existence remains high in the pet trade, allowing them to continue on their genes.

Additionally, like I've stated before, if more terrestrial salamanders are produced with more entertaining colors - this might decrease the demand to capture wild populations, while still allowing people to be enthusiastic about their pet, and supporting conservation of wild populations.

As a biologist who happens to love salamanders (and who worked in one of the labs that did the hybridization work), I think this is possibly the most disturbing and ridiculous post I've ever seen on these forums.

Please do share why you think it is disturbing and ridiculous. Additionally, I am very interested in what hybridization work you've done! Please share that as well.

 

[Azhael]

I am happy to discuss these subjects, i think they are useful conversations to have around the forums.

Ok, i realize neotenic tiger salamanders are difficult to acquire but that is not a valid excuse for fabricating them yourself. Neither is, necessarily, the relative benefit that you would get from the experience. There is a lot more to consider before one can justify that action. It comes down to ethics, much like the position of this site against the market of WC animals.

I´m suprised the metamorphosis variants are being controlled by a single gene, i must remember to read the article.

My issue with mixing species is that it´s not a neutral action. It has consequences, which are often very complicated. A natural hybridation is nothing anyone could object to, but and artificial one (yeah, i had to ), as a conscious act, may be objectionable.
You are making a mistake by thinking the only reason why we should conserve species is because they might be useful to us. That´s a factor, i won´t deny it, but there´s much more to it. For one, they have as much a right to exist as we do. Biodiversity is also key in the viability of ecosystems, losing species is not without consequences. Loss of biodiversity also means an empoverished world with less beauty in it, but that´s just a personal note.
We should conserve salamanders because willfully allowing them to disappear is objectionable, because they serve a function in the ecosystems they inhabit, because they could be useful to us, because they are pretty....xD
When you talk about "purebreds" in this context, you are actually talking about adapted populations, species that have evolved to fill a niche in a particular ecosystem and which have become unique as a result. their uniqueness is what makes them invaluable as members of their ecosystems and why the survival of each species matters.

How does Dawkins´The Extended Phenotype negate my distinction between natural and artificial? I have already agreed that everything that exists in the universe is natural, i accept that premise, but the difference between these naturally ocurring phenomena still exists, and that´s the fact that one is the result of the actions of an agent, and the other isn´t.
A beaver´s dam is the product of an agent and therefore can be classified as artificial, but nevertheless happens in the universe so it´s natural xD Artificial is a qualifier we put on certain phenomena that occur in a natural universe, they are not mutually exclusive.

I agree, the matter of ethics in the hobby is an extremely complicated one and i don´t pretend to have all the answers. That however does not mean that we can disregard any ethical issues that may arise and just do whatever. What we must do is address them and consider them to the best of our hability.
Identifying what constitutes harm can also be complicated, but it definitely goes beyond physical pain. Selecting for deleterious mutations is harmful but it may not involve physical pain, for example. It is difficult to address these subjects as well as stablishing what constitutes fitness in captivity.

I get that you are not looking to produce deformed animals that suffer, but i worry that your criteria is too loose for my liking. Producing albinos that are going to be kept in the same conditions as wild-types or introducing the FP genes to create animals that glow when exposed to UV light are not neutral actions and they produce harm however small and trivial it may be perceived to be.
You are commiting two logical fallacies. The first one is assuming that inducing an animal to breed is necessarily moral. What if the resulting offspring is malformed, or if they are going to be neglected? I´m thinking of a situation where there´s an excess production, here. Is it moral to continue to produce more and more animals, even if there are too many just because the animals are "supossed" to pass on their genes? And do all genes merit the same "rights"? Some genes may be bred out of the gene-pool, is that ok?
The other logical fallacy is the pretense that because worse things happen to animals elsewhere, your harm is irrelevant. "Not that bad" is not the same as "ok".
Tiger salamanders do breed in captivity without the use of hormones as FrogEyes has pointed out. It may still be a relatively rare event, but it´s certainly possible.
Once again, you talk about additional colours as if that is necessarily ok or even good. I strongly disagree.

Well, what you describe is not symbiosis in any way, but if it was metaphorical speech i´ll go along. I´m all for people enjoying certain animals in captivity...i´m not so keen on making them a commercial product, but it´s nevertheless a reality. I certainly agree that we can get plenty of benefits from keeping these animals, but i´m not so sure that they benefit too, or at least to the extent that you suggest.
For starters, axolotls in the wild are going extinct for very specific reasons that are not at all likely to be changed by popular enthusiasm. Once again, i also think that there are significant harms that come from the maintenance of captive populations as is practiced and that that has to taken into account. I do strongly agree with decreasing the demand of WC animals by providing a CB alternative, but not at the expense of doing harm to captive populations.

Anyway, there´s more i wanted to say, or even say it better, but it´s 6 a.m. here and i should be profoundly asleep.


PS: I probably should have multi-quoted your post, i realise mine may be confusing to read, but....too late....sorry.

 

[Vesp]

Hmm I think I see the real root cause for at least our disagreement. Though, likely not everyone's.
And it simply boils down to outlook on life, and not so much anything really related to salamanders.

It seems like you believe all organisms have a right to life, and no more so then a human does. So that we have moral obligations to not kill bugs as we drive down the freeway with our windshields, and not casually breed salamanders together.
your line of thinking almost seems to tall into teleological thinking - almost like you think there is a point to all of it, and so we must try working towards the point to lessen suffering of all organisms? or something else?


I don't believe that - I think its all entirely pointless and nothing really matters, but just for kicks I'm going to hang out for a while and explore around the place until I no longer exist form death or whatever.
Basically related:
Existential nihilism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Absurdism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So for me, the idea of trying to casually breed salamanders is just a thing I want to do, for no apparent reason other then it will keep me occupied, be entertaining, fun, and allow me to learn stuff, possibly make money, etc. Really nothing inherently wrong, right, moral or immoral about it. It is just whatever. I don't even understand it - that's why I kind of like keeping salamanders as a pet in the first place. It seems obviously pointless. Nothing more then keeping a salamander as a pet is going to come about from keeping a salamander as a pet. It's just entertaining. As will be trying to breed them and create new varieties. life is just like a bunch of play dough.

You are making a mistake by thinking the only reason why we should conserve species is because they might be useful to us.

I am not sure that is a mistake. It is an opinion or, philosophy? And if we really wanna face it -- ALL of everything is largely pointless, there is no goal in mind for either earth, humans, or salamanders, and we will all die at some point as an individual, and a species.

For one, they have as much a right to exist as we do.

I'm not very good at thinking in this sort of way. So it is hard for me to comment on - but what do you mean by rights? What are rights, and where do they come from? Especially for the squishy worm that I cut in half for my axolotls to eat, my axolotls, and myself? Can I not eat an axolotl? or a chicken because they have equal right to life as another human, which I certainly cannot, at least legally, eat.

Biodiversity is also key in the viability of ecosystems, losing species is not without consequences. Loss of biodiversity also means an empoverished world with less beauty in it, but that´s just a personal note.

This sounds more like an argument that we should conserve things to help humans. I.e ecosystems, consequences, impoverished world... with less beauty all seem like human concerns, and that it would benefit humans.

 

[esn]

I have nothing more to say on the ethics of this matter. It's all been said, and you seem adamant on your own opinion.

I am still concerned about your methods. You are only reading papers. Do you know where you will get your supply of "hormone treatments"? The proper kind? The proper dosage? Will you be able to be sanitary and lab/hospital clean in your administration of them? Do you even know how you will do it, and the proper injection site for hormones/drugs in a caudate, let alone an animal?

I would much prefer that if you were playing Frankenstein, you'd be doing it in a proper lab setting, and with a mentor, a veterinarian, anyone on call that would have more experience. This is not simply breeding, you are proposing hormone inducement - that's a much more difficult and exact science, and one that I do not know you are capable of if you are basing information off of wikipedia.

And then the matter of how difficult it is to breed tiger salamanders. There are other things to consider rather than just getting some neotenic individuals, shooting them up with hormones, then throwing them in with some axolotls. Your science is half-baked at best, and I'd like to see an exact method here.

I would also like to comment that your arguments on conservation and reasoning behind this as keeping tiger salamanders from being mass wild caught, as in the beginning of this thread you had already professed ignorance of it.

Everything has been a little too theoretical. What I want to know is if you have these animals, will you have any idea what you're doing with them. And once you've done what you want to do with them, you'll try introducing them into the pet trade, where they will run rampant. We still have issues with people thinking they have axolotls and actually have tiger salamanders. Clearly we have enough problems with animals coming out of breeder's hands and being mislabeled. If you think you can avoid that by being clear or selective, you're wrong. They will be mislabeled somewhere down the line, and you'd be responsible.

But this is all conditional on if you can get a pretty enough tiger salamander for your plots.

 

[Vesp]

I am still concerned about your methods. You are only reading papers. Do you know where you will get your supply of "hormone treatments"? The proper kind? The proper dosage? Will you be able to be sanitary and lab/hospital clean in your administration of them? Do you even know how you will do it, and the proper injection site for hormones/drugs in a caudate, let alone an animal?

1. Yes. Ovopel, a documented hormone used to induce gametes in axolotls is easily obtained for ~$0.53 per pellet from a contact I have. + shipping.

Will you be able to be sanitary and lab/hospital clean in your administration of them?

Yes - in fact, I could be overly sanitary and do it all under my laminar flow hood if I wanted, but that is obviously not reasonable given that it is just a simple injection behind the muscle dorsal to the hind limb

Do you even know how you will do it, and the proper injection site for hormones/drugs in a caudate, let alone an animal?

behind the muscle dorsal to the hind limb

There are other things to consider rather than just getting some neotenic individuals, shooting them up with hormones, then throwing them in with some axolotls. Your science is half-baked at best, and I'd like to see an exact method here.

Half-baked? I haven't even said my method. And It does not involve a neotenic tiger salamander being injected.
That would be stupid - it should have been obvious to you, had you read any of this stuff that I was specifically talking about a male terrestrial tiger salamander, as they, unlike neotenics, are difficult to breed.

Everything has been a little too theoretical.

Have you even read the suggested reading material I provided on it? The resources I have provided are not at all theoretical. They even show some nice images.

"Collection of gametes from live axolotl, Ambystoma mexicanum,
and standardization of in vitro fertilization" is a real good read, but there is a lot of other stuff I've read that is helpful also.

And no, I will be doing it regardless of looks of tiger salamander.

The idea of breeding two terrestrial tiger salamanders sounds more profitable and worth doing simply because, as I recently showed all of the F1 offspring of an Axolotl/Tiger mix are terrestrial, and it is only the F2 that start to show 25% neoteny. This, I originally had a bit backwards.

Though its a bit more invasive, I might just try to breed two terrestrial tiger salamanders at first, and work on hybridizing axolotls later, since it requires me to breed terrestrials anyway.

and with a mentor, a veterinarian, anyone on call that would have more experience

The worst that could happen is to have a few salamanders die. Something I'm sure most all of you have done - either in culling of offspring or improper care as a novice starting off. At least, there is enough talk of culling and disasters to suggest this.

 

[Neotenic_Jaymes]

Theres been mentioning about (preserving and still existing) in this thread. The only true way to preserve Ambystomatidae and other salamanders is to preserve their habitats. There are people out there that work hard and spend lots of time fighting for amphibians and other wildlife and they do it without feeling and acting godly.

Protecting habitats is the only way to preserve Tiger Salamanders and Axolotls. All the people I know that work with salamanders work hard to protect all of them not just the (brightly colored ones).

 

[Bellabelloo]

I wasn't going to comment on this as I have made my opinion on hybridisation elsewhere on this site, but here is my penny's worth on the matter.

I feel it would be far better and easier to perhaps focus on something as simple as trying to breed your chosen pair (or more) of tiger salamanders. It can be done and is documented on this site and others. It would also help preserve the wild caught populations and it would be fabulous to see some more people successfully breeding these animals. Far more worthy than pointlessly trying to hybridise them.

Should you succeed, I would strongly advise against letting them leave your care. I think further polluting the axolotl gene pool is unnecessary and irresponsible

 

[TylototritonGuy]

The worst that could happen is to have a few salamanders die. Something I'm sure most all of you have done - either in culling of offspring or improper care as a novice starting off. At least, there is enough talk of culling and disasters to suggest this.

Umm actually, no. I have never killed an animal through improper care or culling and your lack of respect for the the individuals is rather disturbing to say the very least as even though most Tiger Salamander species etc are only low level category on the IUCN Red List but its still an endangered species.

But I didn't even bring it up in chat, and I tried to change the subject. Its just silly that I would be banned for trying to avoid the discussion, not calling names, etc...
It was purely because of a difference of opinion.

And, obviously if you want to convince someone otherwise - you don't call them a retard. You try to understand their points first, and then try to explain why they are wrong -- like Frogeyes and Azhiel (whatever spelling) has done so in the thread..

By the way, you did bring it up in chat. We even told you to drop it after a while as you were preaching to the wrong people, but all you cared about was trying to convince us that this is a good thing, "convert us" I will quote you with.... It's in no way a good thing and I called you a retard, yes I admit that and won't turn back from it because you were in broadcast mode, NOT discussion mode all the cared about is converting people to what you think is right...I told you from the start that I wasn't interested in your views as I dont believe in them, yet you still continued to try and force your ideas upon me, "Converting" me. Lets be honest here, you aren't doing this for the good of the genus or the two species, your doing this with the most colourful individual you can find (this is how the thread started, you wanted something big enough and pretty enough to hybridise). I tried to tell you how it's wrong and why your in the wrong place to broadcast such a project, but you didn't want to know hence why people got fed up with you and you were kicked off chat.

You made up rubbish too, first you stated Ambystoma domestica was an ACTUAL species then later on in chat you pretty much turned around and said "Actually I made it up". Where is the science you were stating as fact? I am tall, my ancestors weren't does that make me Homo Tylosapiens or a brand new species? lol Why are you going to the trouble of Hybridising two species when you could easily use the Hormone method to breed Tiger Salamanders in the first place :S I see no logical reason why you wouldn't do it... Also if you want a Neutonic Tiger then do what Frogeyes said and take one from the wild if it's legally or better still, buy one of your "A.domestica" and keep that considering you want a species thats Neutonic, or how about an Andersoni?

I mentioned another species to you actually thats highly endangered and pretty unique and you basically said "Yeah totally should Hybridise them. Dont know what they are but yeah" All you want to do, which is clear in your first eye opening post about why your doing this (you know the one you claimed on chat would totally change our minds? Yeah that one) is to fart around with genetics and have a bit of fun with changing things... Mate if you want to do that be productive and maybe try and bring back a recently extinct species or something instead of mucking around with species that are, least be honest fine. Want to do something cool? Breed Tiger Salamanders and that might actually relieve a bit of Wild Catching pressure on the species.

I won't be replying to this anymore I have simply had enough of it and I am surpised more people haven't seen it by now, anyway so long!

 

[Azhael]

Ah, ok, nihilism, we have a big problem there. I won´t get into it too deeply because it´s off.topic but no, i´m no taoist or whatever, i too think it´s all ultimately pointless and i don´t think it´s inmoral to kill an animal (necessarily).
When i said we all have the same right to life i meant that my existence is objectively as relevant, or irrelevant as the existence of any other living creature. Subjectively, though, that´s not the case, and neither do i think my own existence to be pointless. It certainly matters to me and those who love me.
At most, I´m an existencial nihilist from a phylosophical point of view, but that´s it.

I do, however, think morality matters a great deal and that it can´t stop at our own species but must necessarily extend to other life forms. So yes, i consider it a moral obligation to not cause unnecessary suffering to sentient beings, and that´s because as a sentient being myself, of the human type, i´m able to recognize that suffering is not nice and that my actions have complicated consequences that i must take into account when choosing which actions to realise. I do not think it can be justified in any context to say that none of these things matter and that whatever you choose to do with an animal is fine.
I understand that you claim to be a nihilist (by the way, the statement that everything is utterly pointless but you´d LIKE to hang around and explore is nonsensical, it makes it not pointless to you) and that you don´t care, but you should. You should because the actions you choose to take affect others. Because (in principle) you are a social creature with an empathic sense and your well-being and happiness are dependant on the well-being and happines of those around you as well as the elimination of unnecessary suffering.
Life is not like a bunch of playdough. Some life is sentient, which i´d say is a substantial difference.

Again,.i agree, one day the universe will undergo heat death and everything that will have happened will have been pointless, but that´s not currently the case. There is life, and furthermore, conscious life. While i exist i´d rather not suffer, i´d rather have a nice existence, and even attemp to be happy, and that all starts with the actions i choose to take. I can´t be happy if everybody else is miserable...if there is unnecessary suffering (and particularly if i´m responsible for it).

Yeah, as i said my use of the concept of rights here was purely metaphorical. I have no problem with killing and eating a domestic axolotl, nor a chicken. I do think, though, that it is my moral obligation to reduce their suffering as much as possible. Once again, the universe may not care if a chicken suffers, but the chicken sure does and since i´m capable of recognizing that certain actions would cause suffering and others wouldn´t, it is up to me to choose the one that minimizes suffering. I know what pain is, it´s not nice at all....why would i not want to spare it to anything that is capable of it?

No, it´s not just about humans and conserving things so that they are usefuk to humans. In fact, if i knew for a fact that 5 years from today, all humans were going to disappear from the face of the earth, i would still value habitat integrity, biodiversity and the good functioning of ecosystems. It may not have an objective, ultimate value, but what does that matter? It matters to me...that´s good enough.

Oh, bloody hell, this is getting long and very repetitive, plus nobody else, except you and me, gives a rat´s **** about any of these.
One final comment. Rethink your nihilism...nobody wants to be around nihilists (particularly moral nihilists) and as you say, while you are here, you´d like to have a good time. It´s not going to happen if your behaviour is not conducive to societal well-being. Doing whatever you feel like doing, may sound good, but it´s not that great if you are doing it completely alone.
Your statement "at worst a few salamanders would die" is profoundly worrying. Suposing that you are a normal, healthy human, you have a sense of empathy. It doesn´t seem to be well-trained, i´d encourage you to stop ignoring it and start nurturing it.

Anyway, i don´t think this topic will last much longer, i enjoyed the discussion even if it bored everybody else out of their minds, but like others have stated, your attitude is worrying and it completely ignores the nature of the consequences. You will have a very hard time defending your plans as long as that continues to be the case. Also, i don´t know how old you are or where your professional career is headed, but nihilism and biology don´t work well together, and even if you don´t see it, your bosses will. We have a name for nihilistic researchers and it´s unethical monsters.

PS: Just to reiterate, you are being inconsistent. On one hand you make the claim that everything is pointless and your actions don´t matter, on the other you´ve claimed you want to do certain things that you think would be good for the species or the individuals, or even for yourself. This is one of the reasons why complete nihilism is absurd...it puts you in a possition where you are constantly going to be inconsistent by the mere fact of being alive, and it completely ignores subjectivity.

 

[slowfoot]

Still sick, still tired, and FrogEyes and others have done a much better job than I could do, but...

I'm not really concerned that you'll (a) make any money on this venture, (b) create a super-salamander that goes on to wreak havoc on the environment, or (c) have much breeding success at all.

Here's a hint: these hybrids you speak of are not quite the majestic creatures you imagine them to be. But good luck with that, I guess.

You sound very young, and I feel a little bad for your future pets. Plus, the whole nihilism thing is really antithetical to everything that makes science (and the scientific method) great. I hope you figure that out some day.

 

[TylototritonGuy]

Did say I wouldn't come onto this thread again but something dawned on me last night.... I do believe people have been over come with the more recent posts and forgotten the title of the thread and what was originally asked. I do believe actually that this is mindless "trolling" or just made to cause trouble considering the majority of peoples feelings are made pretty public about this kind of thing (there are loads of posts about hybridisation etc). This forum can be viewed by any outsider so what is to stop anyone joining the forum simply to "have a laugh" We have had/do have users that are just on here to make trouble, thats something thats known by most of the regular users.

If this user actually knew what he was doing, surely he wouldn't be referencing Wikipedia? Which is a website, world renowned for not being updated enough or even correct in some instances. He didn't even know what species of Tiger Salamander was the largest something that I deem a pretty big thing! Surely someone that's wanting to breed a species or whatever would know the basic, foundations of a species? Doesn't seem right to me as it's not like there isnt hundreds of Care Sheets online which could be used in referencing and most people should read multiple writings about a species anyway to make sure that you know enough. I assume that this will be documented? If thats the case you will need more than Wikipedia as a reference.

 

[Neotenic_Jaymes]

If this user actually knew what he was doing, surely he wouldn't be referencing Wikipedia? Which is a website, world renowned for not being updated enough or even correct in some instances. He didn't even know what species of Tiger Salamander was the largest something that I deem a pretty big thing! Surely someone that's wanting to breed a species or whatever would know the basic, foundations of a species? Doesn't seem right to me as it's not like there isnt hundreds of Care Sheets online which could be used in referencing and most people should read multiple writings about a species anyway to make sure that you know enough. I assume that this will be documented? If thats the case you will need more than Wikipedia as a reference.

There is a big difference between experience and reading information. Many may agree with me when I say, information is almost pointless without use. Apply the knowing or learning from mistakes has always been progress.

There have been new amphibian keepers or potential keepers that do get ahead of them selves on here. Eventually things slow down for them once they realize they can't complete what they set out to do. A lot of new keepers plan on breeding their captives but once acquired they realize breeding isn't so easy or even keeping their newts/salamanders alive is a hardship. Or they overwhelm themselves with many too many species at a time, we call this New Keeper Syndrome/NKS. I'm not even going to get on the topic of a new keeper raising larvae.

As far as keeping and breeding newts/salamanders. The thing that separates people on Caudata.org the most is experience not data scanning or reading, but it may come in handy. Someone or Vesp may read this and have a realization, if not whatever.

Oh and being a MODERATOR or not separates us also!!!