Chris Anderson
Dr. House of Chameleons
Joe,
I don't mean artificially as in forcing them to breed like they wouldn't. I meant artificially as in introducing individuals from locales that would otherwise never meet naturally. Even locales that aren't separated by ocean, etc., really aren't directly cross breeding with the other locale. They are separated by a large enough distance that this level of gene exchange would not occur. The gene exchange is at a much more immediately local scale that very very gradually over generations and generations spreads between our defined localities. With such a gradual exchange, by the time genes reach the other locale we've defined, they are doing so at a much lower level then we could ever simulate by crossing locales. This is why in some areas there is a very gradual transition between what we characterize as locale characteristics. Like I said earlier, the East coast locales are a good example of this very gradual continuum. The West coast seems to have more extreme delineations due to lower exchange due to increased isolation between locales.
We really could argue that everything about keeping animals in captivity has removed factors contributing to the evolution of these animals. To be honest, we aren't trying to maintain the evolutionary ball rolling in captivity since we're never going to release them back into the wild. I would argue instead that by maintaining localities, we are trying to maintain their true wild condition as best as possible by only breeding individuals that in the wild would potentially breed. To do this, you want to be as specific as possible. Regardless of our conception of how close the locales might seem, gene frequencies vary between locales because of reduced exchange and I believe that maintaining these natural gene frequencies as closely as possible by trying to breed pure locales is as close to having individuals that accurately resemble their wild counterparts as possible.
Also, while the idea of a genetic test for locality sounds great, its never going to happen. There isn't the market in chameleons to justify the incredible expense it would take to develop such a test. Also, the test would be expensive to run once it was developed.
Anyway, I personally feel there is strong rational to focus completely on locale purity in our breeding efforts and not intentionally cross locales but I'm a purist I guess.
Chris
I don't mean artificially as in forcing them to breed like they wouldn't. I meant artificially as in introducing individuals from locales that would otherwise never meet naturally. Even locales that aren't separated by ocean, etc., really aren't directly cross breeding with the other locale. They are separated by a large enough distance that this level of gene exchange would not occur. The gene exchange is at a much more immediately local scale that very very gradually over generations and generations spreads between our defined localities. With such a gradual exchange, by the time genes reach the other locale we've defined, they are doing so at a much lower level then we could ever simulate by crossing locales. This is why in some areas there is a very gradual transition between what we characterize as locale characteristics. Like I said earlier, the East coast locales are a good example of this very gradual continuum. The West coast seems to have more extreme delineations due to lower exchange due to increased isolation between locales.
We really could argue that everything about keeping animals in captivity has removed factors contributing to the evolution of these animals. To be honest, we aren't trying to maintain the evolutionary ball rolling in captivity since we're never going to release them back into the wild. I would argue instead that by maintaining localities, we are trying to maintain their true wild condition as best as possible by only breeding individuals that in the wild would potentially breed. To do this, you want to be as specific as possible. Regardless of our conception of how close the locales might seem, gene frequencies vary between locales because of reduced exchange and I believe that maintaining these natural gene frequencies as closely as possible by trying to breed pure locales is as close to having individuals that accurately resemble their wild counterparts as possible.
Also, while the idea of a genetic test for locality sounds great, its never going to happen. There isn't the market in chameleons to justify the incredible expense it would take to develop such a test. Also, the test would be expensive to run once it was developed.
Anyway, I personally feel there is strong rational to focus completely on locale purity in our breeding efforts and not intentionally cross locales but I'm a purist I guess.
Chris
. 
