Phase/hybrid-Let´s think a little

[Nathan050793]

I was using "we" as an attempt not to place blame on anyone (and to not exclude myself and come out as self-righteous). I would like this discussion to be as far away from personal interests and blame as possible, because it´s purpose it not to yell at people and say "bad, bad man, bad", it´s to try and make people think a little about this stuff, contrast opinions and have a polite discussion.

I have no choice but to accept that the average hobbyist is impressed primarily by looks (we all are to some extent, and to negate that is absurd), i just think we are placing WAY TOO MUCH importance in appearance, and that we are justifying some stuff, like illegal collection of protected species, artifitial alteration of species, etc, because of very selfish notions.
We really need to apreciate each species and each individual for what it is, and not for what it looks like. N.kaiseri is not objectively better than C.orientalis, we just give it a much higher value because of the associated status it provides. We tend to think that someone who keeps Neurergus or Laotriton (for example) is a pro, but that person may be a very negligent keeper. We value status and not hability or experience. It´s another example of how shallow we have become.

I understand what you're saying now, and you make a solid point here. It's completely true what you said above, about how Laotriton or Neurergus keepers are considered "pros," but may really not be. I can agree with you on that point: that we should stop seeing species kept as a symbol of status and focus more strongly on how we keep even the most common species.

Additionally, could someone explain for me how "scaleless-ness" in reptiles works? I didn't even know something like that was physically possible.

 

[Azhael]

Someone on this forum said something that i trully thought was genius. It was on the lines of "I admire more the person that only keeps C.orientalis but does and excellent job of it, than the one that has a huge collection of rare species but keeps them for show". Or something like that xD sorry..my memory is terrible.

Sceless reptiles look like this:
http://www.bluechameleon.org/2008 April - Fieldherping/Python regius, scaleless, collage, 1000cc.jpg
http://www.reedysreptiles.com/fullsize/Scale-less 800.jpg

And i just found this, Jwerner...wrinkly scaless snake!:
Scaless ball python image by GONESNAKEE on Photobucket

Scalessness is in my opinion a terrible mutation. It leaves the reptile without protection. Their skins are substantially more delicate than that of mammals since they rely heavily on the scales. I can´t imagine how one of these snakes could constrict its prey...it probably gets wounded very easily. Additionally there´s the lack of ocular protection issue.
And this mutation is not even for aesthetic beauty, it´s purely for the elitism of having a very weird mutant.
Just imagine what will be next....:S

 

[pete]

Scalessness is in my opinion a terrible mutation. It leaves the reptile without protection. Their skins are substantially more delicate than that of mammals since they rely heavily on the scales. I can´t imagine how one of these snakes could constrict its prey...it probably gets wounded very easily. Additionally there´s the lack of ocular protection issue.
And this mutation is not even for aesthetic beauty, it´s purely for the elitism of having a very weird mutant.
Just imagine what will be next....:S

Alright, I'm going to have to push you for a little bit more info on this one. I'll agree after some Googling, I don't find these animals to be the most beautiful.

However, in the case of snakes with an associated neurological problem. The neurological defect is strongly suggests that the animal is in distress and the correlation with the color pattern appears to be accepted.

For these scaleless animals, I did some quick Googling, but I found it difficult to find any associated problems. You speculate that the scales are necessary (I'm sure they are in the wild, but not so sure in someone's basement.) Basically, I'm wondering is there any verifiable problems available (burns from heating, shedding, or difficulty eating, etc.)?

As much as we may want to see these as unnatural. These mutations occurs at a low frequency in nature. If we couldn't breed these animals, but the only way to obtain them was randomly in the wild. Would it be it still be wrong to maintain the wild caught animals as pets? (For the point of this discussion, assume wc vs. cb is equal, otherwise it will take us off topic). If not, then why can't we breed them for pets. I'm just trying to separate breeding of the mutation from actual the mutation.

 

[Azhael]

Correct me if i´m wrong, but to my knowledge, the wild animals (it almost always starts with wild animals) had partial lack of scales, but the total lack was produced by selective breeding?? At least that´s what i know.
You raise a good point in saying that captive conditions could make the lack of scales inocuous, but i wonder to which extent (the lack of ocular scales worries me particularly).
I was certainly speculating about the possible consequences of this mutation (never pretended otherwise xD), based on what i know. I will try to acquire more information on this mutation tomorrow. If anyone else has information on it, please participate.

 

[JWERNER]

However, in the case of snakes with an associated neurological problem. The neurological defect is strongly suggests that the animal is in distress and the correlation with the color pattern appears to be accepted.
.

Please someone post a valid link to back up how color or pattern causes neurological disorders.


Again, this is all do in part by people that have no clue what they are doing, or even worse, those that dont care that insist on breeding bad specimens cause they have the color or pattern they want as well as people inbreeding what stock they have rather then trying to invest in a different blood line.

This discussion would be more acceptable if there was scientific reference.

I see finally a person that breeds posts something with a valid point as well but people just read between the lines.

You can also not blame it on the pet industry as a whole either. Its rouge breeders in the trade, not the trade itself. Without these captive bred animals selectively bred for color/pattern our hobby would lack in lots of interest. So much that even those that stay away from the abnormal specimens would have a harder time obtaining captive bred normnal ones. That will in turn leave you with no choice but to collect wild caught or pay double the cost instead of less. I would rather the pet trade stay in business than invest in poaching. leopard geckos are again a great example seeing how thats one of many species you can not import from the wild today do to very strict laws and out of the huge variety available I have yet to see any valid proof that any disorders can be related to its color or pattern. I see armatures with opinions and theroys on why its happening cause they dont fully understand what is lying beneath the skin. ( no one here specifically!!! ) It also sucks that even now you have to pay equal or greater in shipping costs to get animals we like that are actually specific to this forum ( Salamanders and newts ) which sets an example as well. Not many people breed captive specimens so we have no choice but to order from people like Mike or as many people actually told me to do on this site, go collect your own. No problem with ordering from people like him at all but it just sucks to have to also pay that extra shipping cost. Now, think if we had to deal with that for all our herps/pets.

Until someone posts a solid valid reference link I can follow I am dead set on the fact that the problems lay within the breeders actions ( ie. inbreeding or breeding sick animals from the start ) more than it has to do with selective breeding for color or pattern.

 

[pete]

I don't have nor do I expect anyone to do a study demonstrating looking for linkage between the genes for pattern and neurological problems. However, if you search around snake forums and watch videos, people often say and write descriptions that state these snakes show the neurological problems that often reported for these morphs.

This is specifically why I said, "the correlation with the color pattern appears to be accepted." The evidence that I've found is largely testimonial. You're welcome to contest it. Maybe, someone can provide a study.

However, I don't find it unlikely, that by selective breeding of the color morph we've created a genetic island in the population that has a high propensity for neurological disorders. This could be an unlinked trait that occurs in high frequency in the population. But it could also be a gene that is tightly linked to the color mutation. Furthermore, it could be a direct result color morph mutation. I don't exclude any of the possibilities.

 

[michael]

Most of the health issues from breeding for color or morph in this thread are about snakes and lizards. It looks like we are using examples from reptiles because inbreeding problems are few and far between in amphibians. Most line bred amphibians are as healthy as wild type amphibians. Most of the health issues in salamanders come from poor husbandry. It's fine to say that you don't like morphs or line breeding amphibians for specific traits. It's a bit of stretch to imply these line bred amphibians are weak because line bred snakes have a lot of stargazers. I do understand that their are some genetic issues with flavist Triturus. It's also true that their are egg viability issues with most Triturus.

 

[JWERNER]

I dont understand. People are considering this to be a huge problem that starts with selectively breeding for colors or patterns but yet they dont feel a study is necessary or feel that others might feel necessary as well.

Im seeing quite a bit of crontradictions.



The only thing that comes from this is a indirect result in which again terrible examples of hobbyists are at fault for inbreeding or failing to cull bad specimens out of breeding stock.

Videos of hobbyist that bought the wrong animal is simply hearsay unless there is some scientific proof behind it.

There have been problems with animals bred in the past that could be traced back to one set of unhealthy parents. In some cases the rarest of color phases and patterns could be poster children for something to the same effect. if its so rare who's to say it cant be tracked back to one original bad set of apples?

 

[pete]

Most of the health issues from breeding for color or morph in this thread are about snakes and lizards. It looks like we are using examples from reptiles because inbreeding problems are few and far between in amphibians. Most line bred amphibians are as healthy as wild type amphibians. Most of the health issues in salamanders come from poor husbandry. It's fine to say that you don't like morphs or line breeding amphibians for specific traits. It's a bit of stretch to imply these line bred amphibians are weak because line bred snakes have a lot of stargazers. I do understand that their are some genetic issues with flavist Triturus. It's also true that their are egg viability issues with most Triturus.

Surely there are plenty of undesirable mutations available in amphibians, as I'm sure you'll admit.
Ambystoma Genetic Stock Center
Uniquely and fortunately for the axolotl case the animals are used for genetic experiments and there has been a strong selection to isolate and purify mutations. Beyond axolotls, color morphs in salamanders is fairly new. For the most part I am in agreement with your sentiment, but to imply that because this happens in reptiles doesn't mean something similar could happen in amphibians seems a little bit too optimistic. Perhaps it won't be color and neuropathy, but another trait and defect in amphibians.

 

[jclee]

This discussion would be more acceptable if there was scientific reference.

I'm doing some digging (which provides a nice distraction from a comprehensive exam I'm studying for). So far, through JSTOR, I've found:

Hunsaker II, Don, and Clifford Johnson. "Internal Pigmentation and Ultraviolet Transmission of the Integument in Amphibians and Reptiles. Copeia. 4. (1959): 311-315.

I know; it's very dated. The abstract reads: "The structure and topography of cutaneous receptors of 21 species of iguanian lizards were studied using histology and scanning electron microscopy. Sense organs with "hairs" are found in the integument of Ceratophora, Draco, Phrynocephalus, Stellio, and Trapelus (agamids), and in Anolis, Chal- arodon and Oplurus (iguanids). Sense organs without "hairs" are found in the integument of Physignathus (agamid) and Sceloporus (iguanid). The chameleons have generalized epidermal receptors with simplified structure. Familial differences were observed in the numbers of receptors on the scales of the head and the tail: iguanids have 5-7 times more receptors than agamids. Physignathus differs from other agamids in the morphology, size, and number of receptors. These receptors are hypothesized to serve several functions (as mechano- and thermoreceptors, and possibly sensitivity to humidity)."

While I've not yet read the whole article, this does support the theory that reptiles would be harmed by scalelessness.

The presence of neurological disorders in Enigma Eblepharis macularius might be harder to prove through locating a resource, since it is still a fairly new development. It has been very widely rumored, though, by breeders and keepers alike, so I must admit that I do believe there to be a connection. (And I'll keep digging through databases on study breaks to see if I can find anything.)

 

[jclee]

Wow. Who knew that there were limits to how much text a single post could hold?!

I found another article:
Jackson, Morris K. "Histology and Distribution of Cutaneous Touch Corpuscles in Some Leptotyphlopid and Colubrid Snakes (Reptilia, Serpentes) ." Journal of Herpetology. 11.1 (1977): 7-15

This article seems to focus on the location of "cutaneous touch corpuscles" in the scales of the head, which "appeared as an organized group of dermal cells and nerve fibers which pushed into the epidermis, forming a capsular structure" (Jackson 7). If these nerve fibers exist in relation to scales, then they must be altered by a lack of scales.

(I'll stop digging into snake skin, so to speak. I just wanted to note that enough research exists to support an educated theory that scale-less variants of snakes might be in more discomfort than would seem apparent.)

 

[pete]

The only thing that comes from this is a indirect result in which again terrible examples of hobbyists are at fault for inbreeding or failing to cull bad specimens out of breeding stock.

Videos of hobbyist that bought the wrong animal is simply hearsay unless there is some scientific proof behind it.

There have been problems with animals bred in the past that could be traced back to one set of unhealthy parents. In some cases the rarest of color phases and patterns could be poster children for something to the same effect. if its so rare who's to say it cant be tracked back to one original bad set of apples?

This is quite similar to my original point. So you'd agree that if there is a neurological problem in the say the, "spider" ball python line, someone should or eventually will over time breed that trait out.

I dont understand. People are considering this to be a huge problem that starts with selectively breeding for colors or patterns but yet they dont feel a study is necessary or feel that others might feel necessary as well.

Im seeing quite a bit of crontradictions.

I should correct that when I said "I don't expect anyone to do a study...", I meant to say "I don't expect to find anyone that has done a study." Sorry for the confusion.

 

[michael]

Surely there are plenty of undesirable mutations available in amphibians, as I'm sure you'll admit.
Ambystoma Genetic Stock Center
Uniquely and fortunately for the axolotl case the animals are used for genetic experiments and there has been a strong selection to isolate and purify mutations.

I wouldn't call it an undesirable trait if it is being selectively bred for. Axolotl breeders have selectively bred animals to make many of these traits. Heart lethal is a desirable trait for somebody that is using it for research. Many of these axolotl lines are "desirable" as research tools. Some make good pets and some don't.

 

[jclee]

Surely there are plenty of undesirable mutations available in amphibians, as I'm sure you'll admit.
Ambystoma Genetic Stock Center
Uniquely and fortunately for the axolotl case the animals are used for genetic experiments and there has been a strong selection to isolate and purify mutations.

I wouldn't call it an undesirable trait if it is being selectively bred for. Axolotl breeders have selectively bred animals to make many of these traits. Heart lethal is a desirable trait for somebody that is using it for research. Many of these axolotl lines are "desirable" as research tools. Some make good pets and some don't.

I think the concern (at least on my part) arises when one trait is being bred for, and a second, undesired trait occurs, especially when ill specimens aren't immediately culled from the gene pool. (Genetic research is a separate subject... until genetic research specimens find their way into the trade... which does happen... but at that point, the trait is desired by a hobbyist...)

But on that note, I think I'll tap out for a while, since all of my knowledge on the accidental perpetuation of undesired (sickly) traits relates to reptiles. I still feel fairly new to caudates (and I'm nowhere near the professional scientist that many of you are), so I think I'll sit back and see what the pros have to say for a while.

 

[pete]

I wouldn't call it an undesirable trait if it is being selectively bred for. Axolotl breeders have selectively bred animals to make many of these traits. Heart lethal is a desirable trait for somebody that is using it for research. Many of these axolotl lines are "desirable" as research tools. Some make good pets and some don't.

Ok, I'll give you that one, because I'm not going to get into semantics. However, it does raise an intriguing point, which is what makes a trait acceptable to breed? Unfortunately, I'd like to delve into this a bit, but I'm getting chased off the computer....

 

[Azhael]

If we are using reptile examples is because the discussion is in no way limited to caudates, it´s about the hobby in the broadest sense. Also, caudates have suffered trait selection in a minute way when compared to other animals. Other than axolotls, the other caudate examples are pretty much anecdotical.

Please, don´t confuse the cromossomal condition of Triturus with a condition fixed by selective breeding. The Triturus issue is COMPLETELY natural, and just because we can´t see a purpose for it, it doesn´t mean it doesn´t have one (the group is certainly succesful). The problems associated with leucistic T.carnifex are completely unrelated. The case of T.carnifex is caused by a gene/genes associated with the leucistic gene, both are transmited together causing homozygotic leucistic individuals to die young or be infertile (apparently it´s a direct consequence of an inhability to process vitamine A??). Sounds very much like the Triturus cromossomal condition, since both work in the same way, but is not.

Just because caudates are still barely touched by the phase craze, and because neurological problems are much more difficult to assert in amphibians, it doesn´t mean all of our animals are 100% healthy and problem free.

Jwerner, i see your point, but personally i don´t think it makes a difference. Wether the color trait is intrinsically linked with a neurological problem or not, the fact remains, we are breeding faulty bloodlines regardless of the result. There is proof that certain problems are definitely linked to a color mutation, as is the case of albinism/piebaldism and the associated conditions. I read somewhere that the genes that cause the spider mutation in ball pythons, are the same that cause the jungle mutation in morelias (both are pattern reduction traits), and both animals suffer a very similar neurological condition...that certainly points to a link between the trait and the problem. There is no scientific proof that other mutations are linked to problems because nobody in the hobby seems to care. As long as the animals can breed and make more snake shaped money bags, who cares if the poor thing wobbles like crazy and can´t even catch its prey in the first 10 tries.
I also think it´s a bit rich that you are asking us for proof. The proof that the mutation is inocuos should be provided by those who breed it. I have nothing to do with selective breeding for traits, i don´t participate in it in any direct way, why should i be proving that the actions of others are not wrong?
Still...i repeat, even if it was proved that the traits are not linked, it makes no difference, since people will continue to breed the faulty bloodlines with the "unusual and peculiar characteristic".

Thank you Jclee, that was some interesting information. Some of it reminds of how some cat breeds have issues for not having whiskers.

Once again, i´ll say that i think the problem lies in the fact that we are not setting limits. We are not thinking about what is acceptable and what is not, we just keep breeding and selling. We accept neurological problems, deformities, etc, because we are either not paying it any thought, or we simply don´t care.

 

[Azhael]

I can´t do much more "research" right now, but i´ve been reading several threads in different forums that discuss the spider situation.
From what i have read, the link between the trait and the neurological problem appears to be solid (each one of us will have to decide for himself).
I found this thread particularly interesting because it goes on for a long time, thus including experiences from many people from when the mutation was still "newish" to now:
Selective spider breeding - FaunaClassifieds
I haven´t had the time to read it all, obviously, though.

The consensus seems to be that even despite some individual´s attempts to separate the condition from the trait, there has been no success at all.
Additionally i read an interesting post that said that enigma leopard geckos have been studied in laboratory, and both them and the siblings presented a deformity in the cerebellum (which fits VERY neatly with the lack of motor coordination).

 

[pete]

What makes a trait acceptable to breed? My follow up....

Is color a good/neutral/bad trait to perpetuate and why? Is wrinkly skin a good/neutral/bad trait to perpetuate and why? Is a neurological problems a good/neutral/bad trait to perpetuate and why? And at what point do the negatives of one trait outweigh the positives of another?

I think this broad question is at the heart of this debate. People may find themselves on the side of the strict conservative or purist, with a liberal view that we have the freedom to do whatever we wish without second thought, or anywhere within the spectrum.

Michael's post got me thinking there are several factors that influence how we answer this question. I think two main factors must be weighed in the decision, which are purpose of the animal (pet, research, reintroduction programs, food, or other purposes) and our values (cultural, theological beliefs, and philosophies on life).

Along these lines if I consider a pet. I see the purpose of a pet to be mainly serving human's need for companionship and curiosity, so I'm willing to tolerate a very diverse range of traits. However, not neuropathy, but why not that one? In thinking of traits that I would not accept, they largely include traits, which cause the animal pain or discomfort (animal suffering is another debate...). Simply put this violates a general personal philosophy of mine, which is "do no harm".

This brings me to the question of two traits. What about a spider morph BP, which has an associated mild neuropathy (I cite Azhael's thread as evidence that the BP community largely accepts this to be true.... believe it true or not.). Here I think you have to weigh both traits. Personally the negatives of neuropathy win, and therefore I'd argue perpetuating the trait not be done. Unless it was towards the goal of separating the two genes in a breeding program, but again the purpose of the animal has now changed. It's no longer a pet and more in line of a research project or business endeavor (and becomes a "do the ends outweigh the means" question....). However, if I consider a hypothetical case where trait in amphibians is found that offers chytrid resistance but in association with a mild neuropathy, I may be inclined to bend the other way.

In summary, I'll conclude where I stand on the debate. I don't have any problem with new color morphs/phases, unless it does harm to the animal. Each situation has to be looked at on an case-by case basis. To this point I haven't yet seen evidence that there is some global danger selecting for colors or phases that the whole process should be banned across species. Perhaps, in the case of BPs a better organized breeding registry is needed, more honest breeders, or a better informed public. I enjoyed the thought Azhael.

(and I'm nowhere near the professional scientist that many of you are)

I just wanted to add, that I hope that this does not limit anyone from discussing the global ethics of the issue. Science excels at answering "how" questions, but fails miserably at answering "why" questions.

 

[Hayden]

To me, this isn't a debate. I firmly believe it is unfair to ask an animal to live a life of disability and discomfort for the sole purpose of human want of a certain genetic trait, such as color. I am vastly unqualified to speak about reptiles, as I know next to nothing, but as an avid aquarist, I have though about similar issues regarding our finned friends. Balloon Mollies have been a longtime favorite of mine, as my first tropical fish was a small Dalmation Balloon Molly. I bred them for awhile, and I still enjoy them. However, for those of you unaware, the "balloon" shape of this particular Molly comes from the selective breeding (inbreeding) of normal Mollies with grotesquely disfiguring scoliosis. This deformity causes a severely shortened lifespan (from about five years to about a year and a half), internal health issues, decreased mobility, and many Balloon Mollies die giving birth because of their compromised body structure.
"Fancy" Goldfish are perhaps an even more elaborate demonstration of this phenomenon. The Telescope Eyed Goldfish (let's include Celestial Eyes in this) have wretched vision, and can't compete with "normal" goldfish for food, and frequently starve to death if not given the proper attention. Bubble Eyes can pop their under eye sacks, causing pain, infection, difficulty swimming and death.
I enjoy the look of these varieties of fish, as I'm sure some or most of you enjoy the coloration of said snakes and lizards. I guiltlessly admit that there is almost nothing cuter than a fat, awkwardly swimming Balloon Molly. However, I think that, as hobbyists and as animal lovers, we need to weigh the quality of life of our animals against the cuteness/prettiness/price.

On an not-ranting related note, I have never owned a snake before, but I am looking. Are there certain color strains to avoid?

 

[Ken Worthington]

Hi, I've been following this thread and I must say that I find it very very interesting.
It's a real credit to the contributors, not only on their knowledge and experience, but also for the way that this thread hasn't gone down the 'flame' route, as so many internet forums have experienced.

My other reason for posting is;

Until someone posts a solid valid reference link I can follow I am dead set on the fact that the problems lay within the breeders actions ( ie. inbreeding or breeding sick animals from the start ) more than it has to do with selective breeding for color or pattern.

(italics mine)

I feel that if you are asking for evidence to generally support a personally-held theory, then you can't really claim this theory to be a fact.

I really hate to sound pedantic or disrepectful in any way ( and I mean that in the most positive way) but as a relative newcomer to the subject, I tend to look at this site as being somewhat of a 'gospel' for the wealth of info available cool: thanks)

I thoroughly agree that breeders will inbreed, etc because it is viewed, in a commercial sense, like a production line.

I can see that you, as well as many others are passionate on this subject and I genuinely thank you for one of the most interesting threads for a while.

I have no personal experience in breeding 'exotic pets' (dont like that term), but I was quite involved in the Irish organic growing/farming scene for years. Same debate really, but as for foreign trees becoming dominant in ancient woodlands, not so much about making sure your specimen is 'happy' but if it can host at least the same amount and variety of natural species....from fungi to mammals...and effects on the local ecosystem

I can walk an hour from my house and see a 'chocolate-box' thatched-cottage- English-village-green scenario.....but featuring a large horsechestnut (conkers galore!!) and mature Beech and Sycamore trees, Midland Hawthorn hedge-rows, with rabbits running in the fields,etc. Lovely....

All foreign species to the British Isles, in some cases are invasive pests, in some cases are vermin, but all are 'naturalised'.

As I've said, I come from the 'plant' side of genetics rather than 'animal', but the theory is largly the same. I recommend anyone slightly interested to Google 'Gregor Mendel' the monk who worked with peas (!) hehehe...

Thanks once again for such an interesting thread.....(and I didnt want to come across as negative in the start of my post....so I apologize in advance if this is the case)

PS. @ marshallsmom....I know what you mean about the fish