Breeding different subspecies with each other

I have noticed that the mixing of subspecies is highly discouraged, and though I have no desire to do it I can't help but wonder why?

If we are captively breeding and none of the species will ever be released into the wild then I don't see it as affecting the wild type newt population at all.

also, don't different subspecies often mix in the wild? Doesn't the mixing of subspecies promote genetic diversity which is favorable for survival of the species in terms of evolution and natural selection? Therefore, I can't see this as negatively affecting the individual newts either.

The only reason I can see this practice as discouraged is because we are pure breeding salamanders the same as people do with dogs, which to me, though a pretty good reason, seems more like a preference than a necessity. I don't see why people can't mix subspecies on their own if they want to? Keep I mind that I don't mean any disrespect, I am just asking a question.

remember, I am a college student and not an expert, so there is a good chance that things are different between amphibians and other animals and I just don't know about it. I can also see how in a scientific community it would be important to keep blood lines true because of the desire for a genetic uniformity among specimens.

I'd like to hear peoples opinions on this. There are alot of experts here.

I'll preface this by saying I am not an expert.

It's more of a preservation of the naturally derived animals. Most people here would agree that locality data and preservation of wild type animals is the optimal way of breeding caudates.

The idea is that we are preserving the wild species. This will insure a stock to draw upon should a catastrophe occur (as with Chytrid) that can be used for repopulation.

As for biodiversity, there is enough genetics within one subspecies that there is no need to interbreed among them.

That's where your dog analogy breaks down. Dog breeds are from relatively narrow genetic pools with a history of line and or inbreeding. They were bred by humans to fit their needs and desires. Dog breeds are much closer to breeding novel morphological forms like piebald pythons and leucisitic axolotls.

Breeding animals to maintain wild genetics is nearly the antithesis of "purebreeding" salamanders the same as one would dogs. The idea is to protect the integrity of what nature produced.

People often use dogs as an example but domestic dogs do not come in different subspecies. This is a species that shows a wide variety of phenotypic plasticity that has been bred to specifically demonstrate.

Depending on the species involved different subspecies may never interbreed in the wild.

The goal should be to maintain the animals as close to the wild stock as possible (which is actually the opposite of what is occuring with purebred dogs). And even a mutt (dog) is a pure species.

Some comments

Ed

I do understand now the desire to preserve the species as it is in the wild, I guess you could think of it as keeping a living natural history museum should these species ever go extinct.

Sorry about the dog analogy, I realize they are all one species, I thought that they were possibly different subspecies. I think my problem is that I don't fully understand the meaning of subspecies or its importance, as I look into the meaning of the word, it seems to differ from a species in that the barrier that keeps it from interbreeding with other subspecies is usually geographic rather than something intrinsic to the species like the mating ritual. Another term that was used to describe subspecies was race, but I feel like that definition of subspecies may not be apropriate in this case. Nevertheless, I guess that this distinction of subspecies is perhaps more important in animals like amphibians which have such specific environments and therefore have a greater instance of geographic isolation of populations. Hence the frequency not only of species but also of subspecies.

Thanks for letting me know, but I would still like to hear what other people have to say. does anyone think that mixing subspecies is ok? Why do you think that?

Another reason is that subspecies currently recognised can be considered species in the future. Which means that if you mix them up you can not tell what they are exactly. Good examples are Ambystoma mavortium (which was a subspecies of tigrinum) or Triturus pygmaeus which was formerly a subspecies of T. marmoratus. I even think you shouldn't mix specimen from the same subspecies from different ranges. Specimen found on high altitude probably will react different than specimen of the same subspecies of lower altitude. This could even explain why it is sometimes difficult to breed a certain species.
The question should be asked in reverse: what is the use of mixing subspecies? Just to breed "colour canaries"?

As food for thought, let me ask you this. If you were buying a newt, which would you prefer: a purebred specimen from a known locality, or a mixed breed? If it's just going to be a "pet" animal, it doesn't really matter. But to someone who is interested in further breeding, or who is devoted to both the scientific and the pet aspects of the animals, it does matter. I'm interested enough in the science that I would like to know the origin of the animals as closely as possible (which admittedly is not always possible).