Scaleless Snakes: A Brief History

[RobsCornField]

Being one of the newer mutations in several different species throughout the hobby, this particular gene is causing quite a stink. People are calling them an "abomination" that could "never survive in the wild".

Scaleless snakes have been found in the wild as far back as 1942 when the first scaleless Western garter snake was captured. After that in 1971, a scaleless gopher snake was captured.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_COnkiDzcPPA/SevaDOJcvJI/AAAAAAAAC14/BULPY230FZk/s400/licth_bennett_scaleless_gopher_snake.jpg
Photo Source (http://theobligatescientist.blogspot.com/2009/04/reptiles-sans-scales.html)


Shortly after that, a scaleless mole snake was captured in 1978. Following that came an Eastern garter snake in 1982. The most important observation made by the scientists was that they were captured in varying stages of maturity (hatchling to adult), and none were noted to be any more scarred than "normal" snakes captured from the same area. In 1985, Dr. H. Bernard Bechtel obtained a pair of scaleless Texas rat snakes from the Bronx Zoo. In 1990, he proved out the gene as simple recessive. Another source (http://www.ratsnakezone.com/ratsnake-information/112.html)

In the time that science has known of the scaleless mutation, multiple studies have been done to see if scaleless snakes dehydrate more quickly than their scaled kin. The short answer? No. No they do not. For a more in depth answer, and so you don't just have to take my word for it, here are a couple links to published studies:
A Scaleless Snake: Tests of the Role of Reptilian Scales in Water Loss and Heat Transfer, by Paul Licht and Albert F. Bennett (http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1442730?uid=3739704&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102706003081)
Evaporative water loss in scaleless snakes Albert F. Bennett and Paul Licht (http://compphys.bio.uci.edu/bennett/pubs/18.pdf)


Since then, the scaleless gene seems to be cropping up in many different species, especially those heavily propagated in captive breeding programs. Here are a few examples of some recently discovered scaleless specimens in a variety of species:

Corns

http://www.scaleless-cornsnake.com/gifs/scaleless-corn-snakes_eng_html_405e167d.jpg

Texas rat snakes

http://www.ratsnakezone.com/images/stories/scaleless3.jpg

Gopher snakes

http://www.captivebredreptileforums.co.uk/attachments/snakes-general/11836d1290120006-fao-al-stotton-scaleless-gopher-snake-60024scalless3.jpg

Death adders

http://www.sareptiles.co.za/gallery/albums/userpics/13948/Scale-less_800_(Small).jpg

Burmese pythons

http://i1030.photobucket.com/albums/y366/waterview89c/IMG_4483.jpg

Hognoses

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g285/joep_02/hog1.jpg

Rattlesnakes

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7202/6962302525_d66da13f2b_o.jpg




And many, many more.

In short, it has been proven that this gene is not lethal to the animal, and that wild specimens can survive, and even thrive. It is not an abomination, and is not something to stick your nose up at. You may not like them, and that's fine! No one is forcing you to. But before you bash something for being different, do a little research first. These are absolutely awesome little animals, and deserve the same respect that any other morph does.

[slowhite03]

Thank you, I tried to bring this up in another thread about how it's not a man made gene and it occurs naturally but no one wanted to comment on it.

[formica]

Genetics seem to get people in a right state, I dont know why, I see the same kind of anger at crosses, people claim that it damages the gene pool, and that purity is best - its all a bit Eugenics-esque imo, science has proven that diversity is what strengthens a gene pool, therefore crosses are, if anything, beneficial, even if they do only reside in captivity.

not specific to scaleless snakes, but genetics in general.

I think both issues come from a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works, and why genetic diversity exists

[Akuma223]

Very informative, thanks for posting :)

[Lankyrob]

Thansk for posting, i for one had no idea tehy were found in the wild. Unfortunately because i dont like them i was too ignorant to research for my self. I would never have one in my collection, but that goes for a lot of morphs too, but will be leas judgmental in future - at least until i have done some reading of my own.

[RobsCornField]

Thank you, everyone! Feel free to share this on other forums, too. All I ask is that you give credit where it's due (the sites and sources I cited).

[CK SandBoas]

Thank you so much for posting this! I find the Scaleless snakes fascinating, and beautiful in their own right. We were having a discussion about whether there would be Scaleless Kenyan Sand Boas in the future, in a group I belong to :)

[DragonsEye]

Interesting! Thank you for the info.

Out of curiosity, does their being scaleless also include their lacking their brilles? If so, it seems like the scaleless snakes (particularly wild ones) would be highly susceptible to eye damage/issues.

[zwhitman]

Great post. Thanks!

[Starbuck]

@dragonseye, the way i understand it the skin (scale) over the eye is just not hardened, but it is still there. When they shed their skin, i thought i heard rob mention that the shed still contained all of its parts )including eye covering)? so yes it would be more susceptible to focal point damage and abrasions, but still offers some level of protection from the elements/dehydration.

[shaunyboy]

great thread mate

thanks for sharing

cheers shaun

[millertime89]

Some truly stunning animals. Thanks for the great information!

[smy_749]

Cool thread. To the people commenting on genetics and saying the gene occurs naturally though, the part which is unnatural is the selection. Artificial selection does not occur in nature, and a het scaleless pairing is ridiculous odds. Over how many years, and they discovered how many wild specimens? If anything, the crosses and breeding of these morphs and scaleless animals is the eugenics, not keeping a bloodline pure. Please don't confuse artificial selection and natural selection, it is night and day.


Just to add, "and even thrive". Where is your proof that these are thriving? By definition, thriving would mean the gene should show a genetic sweep, if it was so beneficial as to be in the category of 'thriving'....

Unless you think that an animal which survives to adulthood is the definition of thriving? Blind animals, animals with missing limbs, too many limbs, burns, scars, all survive and live to adulthood as well. So would breeding a species of lizard to only have 2 legs be ok if we found a sub adult in the wild that was feeding well? How about a snake who couldn't see, but was an adult? I personally think every point brought up is complete nonsense....

[marvelfreak]

Never mind this thread not worth my time.

[Starbuck]

Unless you think that an animal which survives to adulthood is the definition of thriving? Blind animals, animals with missing limbs, too many limbs, burns, scars, all survive and live to adulthood as well. So would breeding a species of lizard to only have 2 legs be ok if we found a sub adult in the wild that was feeding well? How about a snake who couldn't see, but was an adult? I personally think every point brought up is complete nonsense....

There is some segment of an Attenborough documentary where he visits an island used for nesting gulls, and there is a population of snakes there which almost solely subsist on the gull chicks and eggs; and by the time the snakes reach adulthood, nearly every one has at least one (often both) eyes pecked out/the animal is blind. Obviously the offspring are born with eyes, and it is surely some advantage in prey detection/predator avoidance, but the adult snakes are reproducing just fine sans eyes.
Just playing devil's advocate. Not arguing your other points r.e. natural vs. artificial selection.

[smy_749]

There is some segment of an Attenborough documentary where he visits an island used for nesting gulls, and there is a population of snakes there which almost solely subsist on the gull chicks and eggs; and by the time the snakes reach adulthood, nearly every one has at least one (often both) eyes pecked out/the animal is blind. Obviously the offspring are born with eyes, and it is surely some advantage in prey detection/predator avoidance, but the adult snakes are reproducing just fine sans eyes.
Just playing devil's advocate. Not arguing your other points r.e. natural vs. artificial selection.

I dont see the point anyways :-P . Its not genetic, and surely you arent saying they are better off without eyes or can pass blindness on to offspring.

[Starbuck]

I dont see the point anyways :-P . Its not genetic, and surely you arent saying they are better off without eyes or can pass blindness on to offspring.

I would hope you know me better than that!!!! :laugh:

my point was that just as being born with eyes (and then losing them) doesnt affect this snakes survival or reproductive capacity, and since the scaleless morphology has appeared multiple times in many genera, we can't state right off the bat that it is maladaptive (i know you didnt say that).

I think we both know enough about genetics to be aware that these 'sweeping changes' take eons to become established, and for all the kinks to get worked out biologically (look at sickle cell; homozygosity= maladaptive, heterozygosity= extremely well adapted at avoiding disease). There may be some benefit to a heterozygous state in the the wild or something that we have no idea about, because no one is out there genotyping snakes for scaleless gene (i dont even know if it is one gene, or recessive, or whatever, at this point :P ).

and as for artificial selection: i dont always agree with it, but i would tentatively say that american life is deeply hinged on this process, without which we would not be able to produce enough milk from only a handful of cows to feed our population, pigs and beef cows would not process food as efficiently, apples and oranges as we know them would no exist, and the viruses and bacteria which make up our vaccines and antibiotics would make us sick instead.... you get where i'm going :) where i hav a problem with the selection process is when it results in animals which cannot function normally (i.e. dachshunds, cranial defects in contemporary burmese cats, milk cows which overproduce enough to make themselves ketotic etc etc).
Until it can be proven one way or another that scaleless snakes are suffering/cannot function normally compared to scaled snakes, im reserving judgement.

@smy: sorry to use your post as a soapbox! :P

[Pareeeee]

Thanks, very interesting article.
Unless, in the future, they discover that the mutation causes health issues or pain to the animal (and I see no concrete evidence of either yet), I don't have a problem with scaleless snakes. I'd actually like to handle one someday, I bet they're crazy soft. I am, however, interested in the whole eye-scale thing. It looks as if the snakes retain certain scales, take the hognose pic, looks like it has the little 'shovel' scale on its nose, so maybe they retain the eye scale as well. I would think the eye would dry out completely if there wasn't something there to protect it.

That rattler sure is unfortunately ugly though, lol

[Derek Roddy]

I'd actually like to handle one someday

If you're a male...you can handle one right now. We all have a scaleless snake. :laugh:
'
'D

[smy_749]

I don't have any particular issues with these, only because I don't care enough about morphs to begin with. If I had to vote 'yes' or 'no', I would vote no on them, but I wouldn't lose sleep over it...

My point was just that the arguments used are useless and prove nothing. I agree starbuck, science always has new suprises and maybe there is a benefit to the gene in its het form, I'm just not convinced something that isn't seen all the time in the wild is so advantageous.

@Derek, hahahahahahaa