Do you like scaleless snakes?

[sattva]

I have been wanting a Albino Western Diamondback Rattlesnakes... Not that my wife will ever let me have one, but I came across this snake on kingsnake...

Albino Scaleless Crotalus atrox
http://market.kingsnake.com/image/1661857.jpg

I am not a big fan of scaleless snakes... I think their ugly!

[Aaron_S]

Simple answer is no.

[Andy_G]

Also a no.

[Tsubaki]

Definetly no

[RAD House]

To me something as important to the evolution of a group of animals is something that should not be messed with. Colors and such that have no effect on the animal in captivity do not bother me, but scales on snakes are a must for me.

[Skipper7]

Nope, it's unnatural and doesn't even look good. Same with silkie Beardies. It's just unnatural.

[whistlepig]

I agree with most that find them unappealing, but am curious about those who site the unnaturalness and evolution. The same could certainly be said about many different color morphs (at least in terms of survivability in a natural setting). I assume these scale-less snakes survive and reproduce in captivity. Do these animals suffer from any known issues that result from their lack of scales or is it just a matter of reaching some tipping point of difference from what a normal snake is supposed to look like? I promise I am not trying to start anything, I just have never heard of these before and am genuinely curious.

[Magdalen]

I agree with most that find them unappealing, but am curious about those who site the unnaturalness and evolution. The same could certainly be said about many different color morphs (at least in terms of survivability in a natural setting). I assume these scale-less snakes survive and reproduce in captivity. Do these animals suffer from any known issues that result from their lack of scales or is it just a matter of reaching some tipping point of difference from what a normal snake is supposed to look like? I promise I am not trying to start anything, I just have never heard of these before and am genuinely curious.

I'm also curious about this too. I mean how is it any different than how we mutate (aka breed) dogs (short, smashed faces that do cause health issues)?

I don't care either way about scaleless snakes. I might just like stirring the pot haha

[eminart]

No.

Scales are one of the cool traits of reptiles.

[trailblazer295]

Short answer no

Slightly longer answer I'm generally disgusted with how we manipulate the physical characteristics of animals to suit our own desires. There is no functional reason to make a scaleless snake other then human desire just like as previously mentioned all the things we've done to dogs. We take something that works well and then change it because we don't like how it looks. Taken animals that natural evolution has molded into amazing machines and now it's a fashion accessory. I have yet to hear how we have actually improved an animal beyond what natural evolution has done.

[Andy_G]

I agree with most that find them unappealing, but am curious about those who site the unnaturalness and evolution. The same could certainly be said about many different color morphs (at least in terms of survivability in a natural setting). I assume these scale-less snakes survive and reproduce in captivity. Do these animals suffer from any known issues that result from their lack of scales or is it just a matter of reaching some tipping point of difference from what a normal snake is supposed to look like? I promise I am not trying to start anything, I just have never heard of these before and am genuinely curious.

Simple colouration mutations (morphs) versus structural mutations (disfigurations). Not one in the same to me. Not everyone will agree of course...i'm against jags and spiders too but I am outnumbered there! To me it's like purposely breeding for kinks. There have been issues with some lines of scaleless (strange growths, skin issues of all kinds) but I am uncertain how common they are. I could just be old school and just uncertain of the unknown, and maybe my opinion will change, but for now and for the forseeable future...no thank you. :)

[whistlepig]

A lot of the discussions on here involve topics I'm unable to say much about because of my inexperience with keeping snakes as pets, but I'm really enjoying hearing everyone's perspective about this. It's funny, from a personal perspective I get and agree with the sentiment regarding these scale-less snakes and other trait manipulated animals we (humans) keep as pets. However, whether we consider an animal "improved" from an evolutionary perspective is entirely dependent on how it performs in the environment in which it lives. Natural selection (or artificial selection if you believe human directed selection should not be considered the same) doesn't really care about physical, physiological or other health problems associated with traits so long as the trait increases the possibility of the individual with that trait contributing to future offspring. So in the context of the pet trade, if people like a certain trait and breeders can make money by breeding individuals with that trait, evolution has done it's job and (in the environment produced by the human pet trade) has improved the "design" of that animal. Of course that improvement only exists within the pet trade environment and as long as there is demand. Most of those changes would perform extremely poorly in a more "wild" environment (including a lot of color morphs in snakes). Now you could argue against selecting for a trait that increases the possibility of suffering in an individual animal possessing that trait on ethical grounds. I could definitely get behind a view that breeding a trait that increases the possibility of an animal suffering is unethical, but that ship is sailed. As Magdalen has pointed out, there are many breeds of dogs that may suffer from the traits we've selected for, but people want them anyway, including members of my family, despite me trying to persuade them otherwise.

[trailblazer295]

A lot of the discussions on here involve topics I'm unable to say much about because of my inexperience with keeping snakes as pets, but I'm really enjoying hearing everyone's perspective about this. It's funny, from a personal perspective I get and agree with the sentiment regarding these scale-less snakes and other trait manipulated animals we (humans) keep as pets. However, whether we consider an animal "improved" from an evolutionary perspective is entirely dependent on how it performs in the environment in which it lives. Natural selection (or artificial selection if you believe human directed selection should not be considered the same) doesn't really care about physical, physiological or other health problems associated with traits so long as the trait increases the possibility of the individual with that trait contributing to future offspring. So in the context of the pet trade, if people like a certain trait and breeders can make money by breeding individuals with that trait, evolution has done it's job and (in the environment produced by the human pet trade) has improved the "design" of that animal. Of course that improvement only exists within the pet trade environment and as long as there is demand. Most of those changes would perform extremely poorly in a more "wild" environment (including a lot of color morphs in snakes). Now you could argue against selecting for a trait that increases the possibility of suffering in an individual animal possessing that trait on ethical grounds. I could definitely get behind a view that breeding a trait that increases the possibility of an animal suffering is unethical, but that ship is sailed. As Magdalen has pointed out, there are many breeds of dogs that may suffer from the traits we've selected for, but people want them anyway, including members of my family, despite me trying to persuade them otherwise.

Dogs are the example of our worst work period. Even within certain breeds we've taken it beyond to ruin. Top of mind is a St Bernard, once a proud working dog now doesn't have the breathing or cardiovascular to do the job it used to excel at or even moderate exercise.

[whistlepig]

Dogs are the example of our worst work period. Even within certain breeds we've taken it beyond to ruin. Top of mind is a St Bernard, once a proud working dog now doesn't have the breathing or cardiovascular to do the job it used to excel at or even moderate exercise.

I hadn't heard about this. Is this the result of inbreeding, selecting for some deleterious trait, lazy breeding practices, or something else?

[trailblazer295]

I hadn't heard about this. Is this the result of inbreeding, selecting for some deleterious trait, lazy breeding practices, or something else?

I haven't done the research but my guess is inbreeding to achieve appearance goals above all else. Ruined a few breeds like that, they are one that comes to mind.

[whistlepig]

That's too bad. Seems like there should have been a way to make money and keep the health of the animal as a priority. Not sure why, the health part should have to suffer.

[RAD House]

Color mutations are completely cosmetic and are mainly influenced by the snakes surroundings. This has no ill effect on an animal in captivity because of this. Scales as a structure are not purely cosmetic and serve to protect the animal as well as retain moisture amongst others. Many of these functions are still important to an animal in captivity. It does negatively effect an animal in captivity to be missing this attribute. Also from an entirely evolutionary stance it is one of the major steps reptiles differentiating from their amphibian ancestors.

[trailblazer295]

I'd also add there is a distinct reason why snakes, crocodiles and other reptiles are almost unchanged for millions of years. Because evolution has proven their form essentially perfect.

[whistlepig]

Color mutations are completely cosmetic and are mainly influenced by the snakes surroundings. This has no ill effect on an animal in captivity because of this. Scales as a structure are not purely cosmetic and serve to protect the animal as well as retain moisture amongst others. Many of these functions are still important to an animal in captivity. It does negatively effect an animal in captivity to be missing this attribute.

I do get what you are saying here, and if it does negatively effect an animal's health in captivity then I am with you. I'm only adding two additional caveats. First that from a "natural" perspective there is little difference between color mutations (here I'm talking about mutations that would make the animal stand out in it's natural environment) and missing scales. Both mutations are traits that would be strongly selected against outside of captivity. Second that if scale-less snakes are a desirable trait, which judging by the poll and responses here must be an extremely small group of people, that animals with that trait will survive and reproduce in captivity, making it a "successful" mutation at least within the community of pet owners that like them. I think what you are arguing is that because it causes problems for the animal that it shouldn't be done, an ethical issue which I agree with.

Also from an entirely evolutionary stance it is one of the major steps reptiles differentiating from their amphibian ancestors.

True, but it's not like there's no precedent for reptiles losing their scales, they've done it at least twice. Once for the lineage that eventually became mammals, and the second for the lineage that eventually became birds. I suppose you could argue that feathers and hair are modified scales and therefore they didn't technically lose them, but it did look like those snakes had some rudimentary scale-like structures as well.

I'd also add there is a distinct reason why snakes, crocodiles and other reptiles are almost unchanged for millions of years. Because evolution has proven their form essentially perfect.

Well this is sort of true. While many of those groups look the same today as they did millions of years ago, they have undergone some changes which is why there are so many different species and subspecies, but true that their form generally works well in the environments in which they're found. In the grand scheme of things though a snake lacking scales that could live and reproduce only in captivity isn't much different than any other recently evolved species. While the differences are highly visible the general form of a snake is maintained.

[daisymaisy]

I have been wondering what is up with scaleless snakes. I see ads for them, all for high prices and I personally don't like the idea of no scales and they look odd. It seems sort of like a fad, not something that is beneficial or something that is neutral to the health of the snake. Almost like some new and exciting to sell for a higher price.

[RAD House]

I do get what you are saying here, and if it does negatively effect an animal's health in captivity then I am with you. I'm only adding two additional caveats. First that from a "natural" perspective there is little difference between color mutations (here I'm talking about mutations that would make the animal stand out in it's natural environment) and missing scales. Both mutations are traits that would be strongly selected against outside of captivity. Second that if scale-less snakes are a desirable trait, which judging by the poll and responses here must be an extremely small group of people, that animals with that trait will survive and reproduce in captivity, making it a "successful" mutation at least within the community of pet owners that like them. I think what you are arguing is that because it causes problems for the animal that it shouldn't be done, an ethical issue which I agree with.



True, but it's not like there's no precedent for reptiles losing their scales, they've done it at least twice. Once for the lineage that eventually became mammals, and the second for the lineage that eventually became birds. I suppose you could argue that feathers and hair are modified scales and therefore they didn't technically lose them, but it did look like those snakes had some rudimentary scale-like structures as well.



Well this is sort of true. While many of those groups look the same today as they did millions of years ago, they have undergone some changes which is why there are so many different species and subspecies, but true that their form generally works well in the environments in which they're found. In the grand scheme of things though a snake lacking scales that could live and reproduce only in captivity isn't much different than any other recently evolved species. While the differences are highly visible the general form of a snake is maintained.

There is a huge difference, evolutionarily and in time scale, between a trait that has remained relatively unchanged for an entire class of animals to one that is not consistent even with animals of the same species. Feathers and hair are definitely modified scales and in either case they did not give up protection these structures provide them. A scale-less animal is more prone to injury and infection, even in captivity.

Now amphibians actually lost their scales, from fish, to better take in air, it is hypothesized. Of course as more efficient lungs were evolved they regained these structures, again proving their importance.

[whistlepig]

There is a huge difference, evolutionarily and in time scale, between a trait that has remained relatively unchanged for an entire class of animals to one that is not consistent even with animals of the same species.

Here I assume you're talking about scales and color morphs? I'll concede that the selective forces acting on scales are most likely stronger than those acting on color and pattern, but both benefit in a captive situation, allowing higher levels of survival and reproduction then they would achieve in a wild setting (relative to the wild type morphs).

A scale-less animal is more prone to injury and infection, even in captivity.

This can be true, but as long as there is demand for these scale-less snakes, that becomes the over-riding selective force acting on them in captivity and it creates an evolutionarily stable environment for the trait allowing them to survive and reproduce, even while being more prone to injury and infection than scaled snakes. The same thing is true for something like a pug, where known health and breathing issues don't stop the breed from thriving in captivity.

[Jeffco]

I'm not personally a fan of scaleless snakes (or morphs in general) but I do think it's important to point a few things out. Scaleless snakes were first discovered in the 1940s (first was a garter I think) and have been found in the wild on numerous occasions. They were found at different stages of life including adult, so they can survive in the wild, although it is not a trait that would be selected for obviously. Also there has been no evidence that they do a poorer job retaining water than snakes with scales. For me it boils down to personal preference. I don't like morphs, although I'll sometimes see one that looks awesome, with leucistic and hypo generally standing out depending on species. Having a snake with a wobble would drive me crazy. But before assuming scaleless are deformed or ill adapted to life I think it is important to look at their history.

[RAD House]

Here I assume you're talking about scales and color morphs? I'll concede that the selective forces acting on scales are most likely stronger than those acting on color and pattern, but both benefit in a captive situation, allowing higher levels of survival and reproduction then they would achieve in a wild setting (relative to the wild type morphs).



This can be true, but as long as there is demand for these scale-less snakes, that becomes the over-riding selective force acting on them in captivity and it creates an evolutionarily stable environment for the trait allowing them to survive and reproduce, even while being more prone to injury and infection than scaled snakes. The same thing is true for something like a pug, where known health and breathing issues don't stop the breed from thriving in captivity.

By this argument all the health issues in dogs that are due to selective breeding, like incresed likelyhood of cancer and diplasia, are warranted because people still buy the animals. Natural selection and human selection are two different things because natural selection selects for survivability and human selection selects for our sensibilities, often to the detriment of the animal. I don't think our hobby should look to dog breeders for guidance, but use more discretion when selecting which traits to breed for.

I'm not personally a fan of scaleless snakes (or morphs in general) but I do think it's important to point a few things out. Scaleless snakes were first discovered in the 1940s (first was a garter I think) and have been found in the wild on numerous occasions. They were found at different stages of life including adult, so they can survive in the wild, although it is not a trait that would be selected for obviously. Also there has been no evidence that they do a poorer job retaining water than snakes with scales. For me it boils down to personal preference. I don't like morphs, although I'll sometimes see one that looks awesome, with leucistic and hypo generally standing out depending on species. Having a snake with a wobble would drive me crazy. But before assuming scaleless are deformed or ill adapted to life I think it is important to look at their history.

Your argument is that because they have survived in the wild that they are not less fit?

[Jeffco]

Less fit, but not lethally so. That much like many other morphs they can survive but they're not going to be selected for. There is a reason we don't see tons of scaleless (or albino, or leucistic) snakes in the wild. Again, I am not necessarily for them but I feel feel the ethics of breeding them are no worse than breeding many other morphs.

[REM955]

Tossing another inquiry out there. Is there any difference in the auto-immune systems between scaled and scale-less?

[RAD House]

Less fit, but not lethally so. That much like many other morphs they can survive but they're not going to be selected for. There is a reason we don't see tons of scaleless (or albino, or leucistic) snakes in the wild. Again, I am not necessarily for them but I feel feel the ethics of breeding them are no worse than breeding many other morphs.

I would argue that they are less fit to survive even in captivity and I don't think we should be breeding for such traits. I don't think you can say that a piebald is less fit to survive in captivity than a wild type.

Tossing another inquiry out there. Is there any difference in the auto-immune systems between scaled and scale-less?

It is possible, but unlikely.

[whistlepig]

Natural selection and human selection are two different things

This would be an interesting topic that I'd love to delve into further, but a snake forum probably isn't the most ideal place to do it, lol.

By this argument all the health issues in dogs that are due to selective breeding, like incresed likelyhood of cancer and diplasia, are warranted because people still buy the animals.

I think you may be misinterpreting my arguments. I am more neutral with regards to selecting for atypical traits in general, but am against selecting for traits that cause suffering in animals. I'm only suggesting that the reality is that demand creates a selective force that can and does motivate people to breed for atypical traits even if it does cause suffering or harm.

I don't think our hobby should look to dog breeders for guidance, but use more discretion when selecting which traits to breed for.

I agree, unfortunately all we can really do as consumers is to decrease the demand. As with anything there are responsible and irresponsible breeders out there and if there is money to be made, some will pursue it, even if it means some animals will suffer.

One final question for you, and I think you may have partially answered it in your most recent post, If there were a breeder who developed a line of scale-less snakes that were otherwise healthy, would that satisfy your objection? Or is it your position that the potential for deleterious effects in the snakes too high that no one should even attempt it?

[Scubadiver59]

Scaleless snakes, just like hairless dogs and cats, are just plain ugly.

One final question for you, and I think you may have partially answered it in your most recent post, If there were a breeder who developed a line of scale-less snakes that were otherwise healthy, would that satisfy your objection? Or is it your position that the potential for deleterious effects in the snakes too high that no one should even attempt it?

[LISA127]

No I find them unattractive.

[TRD]

Problem with these really rare traits is the requirement for excessive inbreeding. There are wild caught scaleless snakes. Nothing wrong with that, it happens. Intentionally breeding/inbreeding scaleless snakes for the sake of making money off it, is a whole other thing.

There's enough inbreeding in the reptile world as it is.

[akane]

I'm also curious about this too. I mean how is it any different than how we mutate (aka breed) dogs (short, smashed faces that do cause health issues)?

I don't care either way about scaleless snakes. I might just like stirring the pot haha

I don't own short, smushed faced dogs and those bred to an extreme that causes health risks. All my dogs are athletic in the medium to lower large end and any alteration, like tail curl or ear shape, does not impact their health and movement beyond the usual illnesses you can find in most breeds of dog. Although, I also have breeds with relatively low incidences of genetic illness and longer lifespans than average on my larger breeds.

For the most part I like things how they are in the wild. I've actually had to warm up a bit to even color morphs and oddly colored exotics. I think part of the original appeal of rosy boas was that they are naturally all those colors and just developed them in the wild in different areas. I have no interest in albinos, snows, and so on. I still don't really like the light version of anything unless it's just to remove 1 color to white while leaving a contrast with a darker color. My lavender stripe corn is neat but I wouldn't have gotten it if it wasn't $20 and I still check out every charcoal and anery corn snake post.

[dannybgoode]

No-hideous ambominations.

[Scubadiver59]

Tell us how you really feel! :)

No-hideous ambominations.

[dannybgoode]

Tell us how you really feel! :)

Yorkshireman - blunt honesty comes as standard :)