What's the deal with scaleless snakes?

[jjhill001]

I'm not a big morph guy but I can appreciate a few, especially those that originated in the wild and not from rampant inbreeding.

What the heck is the interest in these scaleless snakes? They look disabled/deformed if that makes any sense.

Do they have any difficulty in living that way?

Thanks for the answers.

[Scubadiver59]

There were a few other discussions in other threads about this...this is one:

http://www.ssnakess.com/forums/general-discussion/114438-do-you-like-scaleless-snakes.html

Just go to the search function and query "scaleless" to see just how many times this has been touched upon.

[Aaron_S]

I have a friend with scaleless corns. Not gonna lie, they are pretty neat.

[Scubadiver59]

one word...fugly!

I have a friend with scaleless corns. Not gonna lie, they are pretty neat.

[TRD]

Don't like them personally. It feels like what we did to dogs is being applied to snakes, eventually we will create separate "races" of snakes. We take the deformities arised from excessive inbreeding and plain old genetic accidents and start purifying them. We already have morphs with significant problems caused by humans and their curious passion to create something different.

[dannybgoode]

And don't forget eyeless snakes are now a thing of some commercial value. Skinless frogs also (of course they are not entirely skinless but appear to be missing the outer layer).

To me breeding intentional deformities is wrong on a number of levels and people clearly don't know when to stop.

[TRD]

Yea I saw those eyeless snakes... pathetic that there is actually a market for them to start with. But whatever that particular breeder does, I hope he has a meeting with the karmabus one fine day.

[Minkness]

Just throwing this out there, but scaleless snakes HAVE actually been found in the wild. One guy on this very forum found a juvie (not a baby) scaleless garter snake in the woods.

I personally appreciate the consideration taken to hybrid and mutate genetics as it is another way to learn about the world we live in. Curiosity isn't a bad thing. What's bad is when it affects the animal in a negative way. Like English bull dogs and their problems...those are BAD. It affects their every day life in a painful uncomfortable way that leads to ridiculously short life spans.

That being said, research has shown that the lack of scales on snakes does not show any negative affects. They have looked into such things as moisture retention, UV exposure, mobility, ect and have found that the animal is not impacted by any of those things (and more) by the lacking of their scales.

No, I do not have medical journals on file to share regarding this research, but I am sure you can find the same information in Google it talking to the people who actually breed these animals.

That all said, I rather like the feel of the scaleless snakes as I am a tactile person and appreciate the different feel and textures if different animals.

[SerpentineDream]

And don't forget eyeless snakes are now a thing of some commercial value. Skinless frogs also (of course they are not entirely skinless but appear to be missing the outer layer).

To me breeding intentional deformities is wrong on a number of levels and people clearly don't know when to stop.

There's a market for eyeless snakes and "skinless" frogs?!

What is wrong with people? That's just sick.

[dannybgoode]

@mink - breeders, who have a strong financial interest in moving on these abominations, would be the very last people on earth I'd ask to justify their creating these animals. If there's a scientific paper on the subject I'm all ears. Breeder anecdotes are out.

Snakes have been around for 100,000's, even millions of years. There are thousands of snake species/sub species covering just about every land and sea mass on earth.

If being scaleless was a 'desirable' genetic trait then it is almost certain that a scaleless species - at least one species - would have evolved by now.

There are very very few adult scaleless snakes ever found and this alone suggests that they do not do well in the wild - the fact the garter was a juvenile is telling and it's very unlikely it would have survived into adulthood.

@serpentine - a certain breeder with the initials BB has started touting them.

[SerpentineDream]

@serpentine - a certain breeder with the initials BB has started touting them.

Sigh. I should have known.

Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

[scales.jp]

I don't get it at all. Why would any reptile enthusiast want a scaleless animal? Apart from the ethical (or rather unethical) side of it, aren't the scales ones of the main attractions to our cold-blooded companions?

[RAD House]

I don't like the way scaleless snakes look, a bit too phallic for my taste. There are plenty of people who do and more power to them. I think we need to realize there is a very distinct difference between wild animals and those we keep in captivity. In most cases the two should not mix for many reasons. I agree that we should not breed for genes that negatively effect an animal, but as mink pointed out that may not be the case for scaleless animals.

As for eyeless snakes, I totally get the fascination. By all accounts they act as normal snakes, at least in ball pythons. This is due to the fact that they can make up for true vision via their heat pits. I think eyeless snakes just display how incredible this ability is. I would love to have one in my collection, but I do not think people should breed for this trait. To my knowledge there is not anyone who is, but these animals just pop up randomly. I see no issue with finding these very slightly disabled animals homes, and certainly don't think they should be culled.

[TRD]

That may be your opinion, but I strongly disagree to do selective breeding for deformities and other negative traits regardless if there is market for it. Not just specific to reptiles, but any animal. It can't possibly lead to anything good, and you're not making 'Happy animals' by selectively breeding them for these traits. They deserve a lot better than that.

Also, heatpits do not make up for true vision. That's similar as saying that hearing makes up for true vision in humans. They can detect something that is hotter or colder than the things around it, that's it basically.

[akane]

While I'd never own one scaleless snakes are not only the result of strict inbreeding and many in more specific colubrid groups post them in any typical enclosure designs with no special precautions. Things like susceptibility to parasites and external health problems has been discussed occasionally, there was a thread on mites in the pituophis group and one on corns overall in the general colubrid group in the past month, and those who have them say it's been no more of a care issue than their scaled snakes. About all that comes up is whether some are hybrids and not being marketed truly as such when it matters to some people.

The fact they don't make a stable population in the wild is no different than the many morph colors that don't make a population in the wild and heck even endangered species since they can no longer meet the requirements to survive even if they once did. Should we stop keeping everything that's natural food source has become too scarce or no longer has enough suitable land to reproduce on because like morphs they can't make a wild population anymore? Plus many of the traits that create benefits of buying cb individuals over wc make them unable to survive back in the wild again anyway so it's not really a good argument for anything. They aren't in the wild with those requirements of predation and finding suitable food and surroundings so I care about their ability to live normal in captivity only. You can inbreed any typical wild looking snakes with normal scales into health issues too. You can do it with anything. Whether someone inbreeds to the point of problems or not is the breeder not the morph. It just tends to happen more with morphs since people will still pay for unique even if it takes extreme measures to keep healthy or will always live a shorter lifespan. One reason in other species I prefer performance/working line animals and don't show anything that is only based on appearances. If they can't do their job they aren't worth more to people for some unique trait so people won't breed them unless they think they can eliminate the problems. Sometimes they will keep a new breed or type under strict control for decades before allowing other breeders and then the general public access to make sure they have created a stable population of healthy individuals again with the new trait. Some responsibly created dog breeds were kept hush for 50 years and some lines of performance horses with a recessive issue require genetic testing to be released with the papers or you know someone is hiding something to try to get their money despite a positive result. It can be done to the benefit of the animal or not no matter what it is. It doesn't mean they are all that way. Unfortunately much of it is only kept in check by the buyers and whether there is still a market for it or selling something with a genetic problem regardless of its' other traits ruins your reputation instead.

[Scubadiver59]

Wall of text... :eek:

While I'd never own one scaleless snakes are not only the result of strict inbreeding and many in more specific colubrid groups post them in any typical enclosure designs with no special precautions. Things like susceptibility to parasites and external health problems has been discussed occasionally, there was a thread on mites in the pituophis group and one on corns overall in the general colubrid group in the past month, and those who have them say it's been no more of a care issue than their scaled snakes. About all that comes up is whether some are hybrids and not being marketed truly as such when it matters to some people.

The fact they don't make a stable population in the wild is no different than the many morph colors that don't make a population in the wild and heck even endangered species since they can no longer meet the requirements to survive even if they once did. Should we stop keeping everything that's natural food source has become too scarce or no longer has enough suitable land to reproduce on because like morphs they can't make a wild population anymore? Plus many of the traits that create benefits of buying cb individuals over wc make them unable to survive back in the wild again anyway so it's not really a good argument for anything. They aren't in the wild with those requirements of predation and finding suitable food and surroundings so I care about their ability to live normal in captivity only. You can inbreed any typical wild looking snakes with normal scales into health issues too. You can do it with anything. Whether someone inbreeds to the point of problems or not is the breeder not the morph. It just tends to happen more with morphs since people will still pay for unique even if it takes extreme measures to keep healthy or will always live a shorter lifespan. One reason in other species I prefer performance/working line animals and don't show anything that is only based on appearances. If they can't do their job they aren't worth more to people for some unique trait so people won't breed them unless they think they can eliminate the problems. Sometimes they will keep a new breed or type under strict control for decades before allowing other breeders and then the general public access to make sure they have created a stable population of healthy individuals again with the new trait. Some responsibly created dog breeds were kept hush for 50 years and some lines of performance horses with a recessive issue require genetic testing to be released with the papers or you know someone is hiding something to try to get their money despite a positive result. It can be done to the benefit of the animal or not no matter what it is. It doesn't mean they are all that way. Unfortunately much of it is only kept in check by the buyers and whether there is still a market for it or selling something with a genetic problem regardless of its' other traits ruins your reputation instead.

[scales.jp]

I see no issue with finding these very slightly disabled animals homes, and certainly don't think they should be culled.

I certainly agree when the animal has unfortunately been born like this naturally, but strongly disagree when it's purposefully done to produce something 'unique'. This is just my opinion, but all designer morphs have something missing (I mean animals that have been repeatedly inbred to achieve a desired look). Not to go on a rant, but it makes me laugh when breeders post their latest offerings on this or that SNS saying that they have 'created' or 'produced' a new morph/combo as if they've improved on something designed by millennia of evolution.

[RAD House]

That may be your opinion, but I strongly disagree to do selective breeding for deformities and other negative traits regardless if there is market for it. Not just specific to reptiles, but any animal. It can't possibly lead to anything good, and you're not making 'Happy animals' by selectively breeding them for these traits. They deserve a lot better than that.

Also, heatpits do not make up for true vision. That's similar as saying that hearing makes up for true vision in humans. They can detect something that is hotter or colder than the things around it, that's it basically.
Then you are entirely against any domesticated animal, including dogs or any food animal? Most if not all traits we have selected for would be a disadvantage to a wild animal. Also I believe it has been proven that the heat sensing is translated in the same area of the brain as optical images. Because of this It is thought that snakes see with a heat image overlaying an optical image. Meaning that if they lose optical sight they will still have a heat image, somewhat like a thermal camera. This fits with most reports from people who have had experience with eyeless animals.

[scales.jp]

Then you are entirely against any domesticated animal, including dogs or any food animal?

Or most commercially available fruit and vegetables, but I'd rather have a wolf than a Chihuahua, just as I'd rather eat wild food than factory farmed. That's just my personal preference, but I think there are enough naturally available choices out there to avoid the need to breed what are essentially freaks. Obviously not everyone has the same viewpoint. Just as long as they don't take over the hobby!

[SerpentineDream]

Unfortunately much of it is only kept in check by the buyers and whether there is still a market for it or selling something with a genetic problem regardless of its' other traits ruins your reputation instead.

I had originally decided to keep any disabled snakes I produced just so that I could give them the special care they needed, as I would consider it my responsibility since I brought them into the world. I don't like the idea of culling unless the animal has a serious deformity or condition that ruins its quality of life and / or would soon kill it, such as a very badly kinked spine.

The fad of selectively breeding for eyeless snakes adds a whole new dimension to it. Once you've sold an animal to someone you no longer have any control over whether it gets bred or not. A buyer can swear up and down that they will never breed the snake and even sign a contract stating such. But ultimately you are relying on their adherence to that promise. If the buyer then sells the snake you have no idea what that person will do.

I saw a video a while back of the aforementioned breeder / proponent of eyeless snakes. At the time I don't think he was breeding them. He was feeding his snakes and mentioned offhand that this female albino ball python was born without eyes. IIRC he had to hold the rodent directly in front of her face so that she could smell and sense it and move to take it, then manually feed it to her so that she could swallow it head first. It was pretty clear to me that she had difficulty eating on her own and I remember thinking, "Poor critter. At least he's keeping her and going the extra mile to help her eat. Good for him." Little did I know that he would end up actually breeding for that disability for $$$.

Scaleless corns and scaled corns het for the mutation are all interspecies hybrids. The original scaleless corn was the mutant offspring of a corn snake bred to an Emory's rat snake, which is a closely related species. They are all descended from him.

I wouldn't buy nor intentionally breed for a scaleless snake as I consider this trait a deformity. Some disagree with me on this score, but it has remained my position. My reaction to seeing a scaleless corn for the first time was revulsion. I wondered why anyone would intentionally do that to a snake, leaving it naked and vulnerable by taking away its protective scales.

[TRD]

Then you are entirely against any domesticated animal, including dogs or any food animal? Most if not all traits we have selected for would be a disadvantage to a wild animal. Also I believe it has been proven that the heat sensing is translated in the same area of the brain as optical images. Because of this It is thought that snakes see with a heat image overlaying an optical image. Meaning that if they lose optical sight they will still have a heat image, somewhat like a thermal camera. This fits with most reports from people who have had experience with eyeless animals.

I'm against that type of breeding where 'cosmetic' reasons trump health, yes. Breeding children back to grandparents and whatnot other idiotic things. People playing with genetics they don't understand because they only look at a certain color pattern, but don't care whether or not they also create animals that are so weak they can't even breach the shell of an egg at birth or have a high chance of neurological issues. Whether it's snakes, dogs, cats, horses, whichever.

[Aaron_S]

I'm against that type of breeding where 'cosmetic' reasons trump health, yes. Breeding children back to grandparents and whatnot other idiotic things. People playing with genetics they don't understand because they only look at a certain color pattern, but don't care whether or not they also create animals that are so weak they can't even breach the shell of an egg at birth or have a high chance of neurological issues. Whether it's snakes, dogs, cats, horses, whichever.

Do you own crested geckos? Bearded dragons? Carpet pythons?

[RAD House]

I'm against that type of breeding where 'cosmetic' reasons trump health, yes. Breeding children back to grandparents and whatnot other idiotic things. People playing with genetics they don't understand because they only look at a certain color pattern, but don't care whether or not they also create animals that are so weak they can't even breach the shell of an egg at birth or have a high chance of neurological issues. Whether it's snakes, dogs, cats, horses, whichever.

It seems to me you are being a bit unfair in your condemnation of others breeding choices. Humans breed animals for the usefulness to the human itself with little consideration to the animals health wether that be to produce more food, run fast or just be aesthetically pleasing. To pick anyone one of these as unjust and not the others seems unreasonable. Truly I think there is more concern for health in the reptile hobby than was ever given to cattle and dogs during their development. You say they can not make it out of the egg, but they do. I am with you in that I think a snake should have scales, but how much is it really effecting the animals life in captivity? From what I have read very little, which as we neither have any personal experience, is all we have to go on. Now breeding snakes that have neurological issues, especially when the offspring can be born or develop into an animal that can not survive, is in my opinion an entirely different animal. Still I don't entirely condemn any person who breeds such animals, but chose not to myself.

[Andy_G]

My take:

Scaleless or eyeless? No thanks. Anything with a wobble or other neurological issue? Nope. Anything that needs help pipping? Also a hard no, it's gotta hatch on it's own. Breeding anything that has a kink, even if it was just an incubation issue? Again...no. Hybrids? No...can't control what a buyer does with them or how they are sold or flipped after you no longer have them. Morphs? Yes, why not? Unless someone is taking an active part in the reintroduction of a species in the wild or involved in some kind of funded legitimate conservation effort, which I don't think ANYONE on here is, I fail to see the issue with morphs. Inbreeding is an integral part of the foundation of speciation in nature and doesn't create a problem when it comes to captive propogation of reptiles except when it comes to certain one-off's such as drymarchon. Outcrossing is of course always encouraged but unless someone is having DNA testing done on their stock, there is no way to ensure that individuals are [mostly] unrelated.

[eminart]

Simple color morphs are where I draw the line. Even there, I very often prefer "wild type" to any morph. I really don't get the fascination with scaleless snakes and I certainly don't care for any other physical deformity. Even the two-headed snakes. It's interesting that it happens, but I have zero desire to own one.

[RAD House]

I had originally decided to keep any disabled snakes I produced just so that I could give them the special care they needed, as I would consider it my responsibility since I brought them into the world. I don't like the idea of culling unless the animal has a serious deformity or condition that ruins its quality of life and / or would soon kill it, such as a very badly kinked spine.

The fad of selectively breeding for eyeless snakes adds a whole new dimension to it. Once you've sold an animal to someone you no longer have any control over whether it gets bred or not. A buyer can swear up and down that they will never breed the snake and even sign a contract stating such. But ultimately you are relying on their adherence to that promise. If the buyer then sells the snake you have no idea what that person will do.

I saw a video a while back of the aforementioned breeder / proponent of eyeless snakes. At the time I don't think he was breeding them. He was feeding his snakes and mentioned offhand that this female albino ball python was born without eyes. IIRC he had to hold the rodent directly in front of her face so that she could smell and sense it and move to take it, then manually feed it to her so that she could swallow it head first. It was pretty clear to me that she had difficulty eating on her own and I remember thinking, "Poor critter. At least he's keeping her and going the extra mile to help her eat. Good for him." Little did I know that he would end up actually breeding for that disability for $$$.

Scaleless corns and scaled corns het for the mutation are all interspecies hybrids. The original scaleless corn was the mutant offspring of a corn snake bred to an Emory's rat snake, which is a closely related species. They are all descended from him.

I wouldn't buy nor intentionally breed for a scaleless snake as I consider this trait a deformity. Some disagree with me on this score, but it has remained my position. My reaction to seeing a scaleless corn for the first time was revulsion. I wondered why anyone would intentionally do that to a snake, leaving it naked and vulnerable by taking away its protective scales.
I am not aware of anyone breeding for eyeless snakes, and I am not even sure it is possible. From what I understand it is not thought to be genetic, at least in ball pythons, because it pops up randomly in many lines. Most of what I have read points to it being a developmental issue in the egg.

Simple color morphs are where I draw the line. Even there, I very often prefer "wild type" to any morph. I really don't get the fascination with scaleless snakes and I certainly don't care for any other physical deformity. Even the two-headed snakes. It's interesting that it happens, but I have zero desire to own one.

Two headed snakes seem like a ton of work to keep alive in my opinion.

[scales.jp]

Scaleless or eyeless? No thanks. Anything with a wobble or other neurological issue? Nope. Anything that needs help pipping? Also a hard no, it's gotta hatch on it's own. Breeding anything that has a kink, even if it was just an incubation issue? Again...no. Hybrids? No...can't control what a buyer does with them or how they are sold or flipped after you no longer have them. Morphs? Yes, why not? Unless someone is taking an active part in the reintroduction of a species in the wild or involved in some kind of funded legitimate conservation effort, which I don't think ANYONE on here is, I fail to see the issue with morphs. Inbreeding is an integral part of the foundation of speciation in nature and doesn't create a problem when it comes to captive propogation of reptiles except when it comes to certain one-off's such as drymarchon. Outcrossing is of course always encouraged but unless someone is having DNA testing done on their stock, there is no way to ensure that individuals are [mostly] unrelated.

That's pretty much my view exactly, although I don't have a problem with hybrids as long as the species involved have similar husbandry requirements and are responsibly cared for. I'm not a fan of inbreeding, especially when it's done excessively. Then again, what I consider excessive may be acceptable from a biological standpoint. I don't know enough about genetics and still have a lot to learn. I suppose there's a higher likelihood of inbreeding amongst wild populations than there is of hybridism. Double standards? Now I don't know what I think!:confused:

[Aaron_S]

@mink - breeders, who have a strong financial interest in moving on these abominations, would be the very last people on earth I'd ask to justify their creating these animals. If there's a scientific paper on the subject I'm all ears. Breeder anecdotes are out.

Snakes have been around for 100,000's, even millions of years. There are thousands of snake species/sub species covering just about every land and sea mass on earth.

If being scaleless was a 'desirable' genetic trait then it is almost certain that a scaleless species - at least one species - would have evolved by now.

There are very very few adult scaleless snakes ever found and this alone suggests that they do not do well in the wild - the fact the garter was a juvenile is telling and it's very unlikely it would have survived into adulthood.

@serpentine - a certain breeder with the initials BB has started touting them.

1. There have been so many scaleless animals found in the wild. Texas rat snakes, corn snakes, burmese pythons, garter snakes, death adders and I'm sure there's more. These were all generally adults found. There's probably more out there we just haven't seen/found. I personally won't have them but I have come around to see what others see in them.

2. What are you talking about that Brian has been "touting" eyeless snakes and breeds for them? Have you actually watched his videos highlighting his eyeless snake? Most people see something and jump to the conclusions on this guy. He had some random genetic deformities come up in the clutch (shark mouth and 1 eyed snakes and 1 snake without any eyes.) He admits he think he messed up in the pairing of his animals. He goes on to talk about what happens with these animals and he says they keep them around and hopefully they establish themselves and if they do he finds them forever PET homes (doesn't sell them) with a strong encouragement to not breed the animals.

I know he's made mistakes in the past and he isn't well like but you have to call the good with the bad and in my books him not destroying the animals and giving them a chance at a life is good.

[Andy_G]

1. There have been so many scaleless animals found in the wild. Texas rat snakes, corn snakes, burmese pythons, garter snakes, death adders and I'm sure there's more. These were all generally adults found. There's probably more out there we just haven't seen/found. I personally won't have them but I have come around to see what others see in them.

2. What are you talking about that Brian has been "touting" eyeless snakes and breeds for them? Have you actually watched his videos highlighting his eyeless snake? Most people see something and jump to the conclusions on this guy. He had some random genetic deformities come up in the clutch (shark mouth and 1 eyed snakes and 1 snake without any eyes.) He admits he think he messed up in the pairing of his animals. He goes on to talk about what happens with these animals and he says they keep them around and hopefully they establish themselves and if they do he finds them forever PET homes (doesn't sell them) with a strong encouragement to not breed the animals.

I know he's made mistakes in the past and he isn't well like but you have to call the good with the bad and in my books him not destroying the animals and giving them a chance at a life is good.

Yeah...there's a lot that Brian does that I can't agree with, but sometimes the accusations that get thrown around are ridiculous and purely false. Yet another witch hunt.

[SerpentineDream]

I am *very* happy that turns out to be mistaken.

[jjhill001]

I certainly agree when the animal has unfortunately been born like this naturally, but strongly disagree when it's purposefully done to produce something 'unique'. This is just my opinion, but all designer morphs have something missing (I mean animals that have been repeatedly inbred to achieve a desired look). Not to go on a rant, but it makes me laugh when breeders post their latest offerings on this or that SNS saying that they have 'created' or 'produced' a new morph/combo as if they've improved on something designed by millennia of evolution.

To be fair, basically any commonly available reptile that is commonly captive bred is a result of at minimum line breeding. The carpet pythons, corn snakes and other various commonly kept species have been over time selected for the best looking individuals.

For example this corn snake, while definitely pretty in it's own right, is a far more common example of the species:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Young_corn_snake%2C_Nevis.JPG/1280px-Young_corn_snake%2C_Nevis.JPG


Than for example this amazing piece of art:

http://www.sunshineserpents.com/images/Corn%20Snakes/Okeetee%20Corn/Elaphe_guttata_guttata_Okeetee_Female_2-12-12_A1_web.jpg

Now, those do occur in the wild. But we got them and bred them together to create various lines. Sort of what you see with keeping "locality" animals pure (something the carpet python people could learn from lol).

Kathy Love who was one of the very first people, along with her husband to be major players in the snake breeding and morph industry said it best in regards to the criticisms of morphs (paraphrasing) "The snakes you're buying are nothing close to the snakes we first started with, even the most "normal" captive bred corn snake looks vastly better than the average wild specimen due to generations of selecting the best of the best snakes"

Like I said, morphs aren't really my thing. But I know for a fact that my Baird's Rat Snakes that everyone on the forums likes so much are a result of Tim Gebhard keeping his line pure and only breeding the best of the best over years and years, only introducing new animals from that same area.

That's not really THAT much different than a morph which is why I sort of softened my opinion of them over the years to be honest.

The same goes for basically any other species we keep regularly.

[scales.jp]

"... I know for a fact that my Baird's Rat Snakes that everyone on the forums likes so much are a result of Tim Gebhard keeping his line pure and only breeding the best of the best over years and years, only introducing new animals from that same area.

But breeding the best of the best from a certain locality isn't the same as breeding the offspring back to the parents, then their offspring back to the parents/grandparents, then the best looking offspring with each other, which is what happens. I'd rather it didn't, but maybe that's just because I don't know enough about genetics in reptile breeding. The 2014 CB Angolan python I'm in love with was almost certainly the result of inbreeding at some level just because there weren't really enough unrelated animals around for it to have been otherwise.

[scales.jp]

"... I know for a fact that my Baird's Rat Snakes that everyone on the forums likes so much are a result of Tim Gebhard keeping his line pure and only breeding the best of the best over years and years, only introducing new animals from that same area.

But breeding the best of the best from a certain locality isn't the same as breeding the offspring back to the parents, then their offspring back to the parents/grandparents, then the best looking offspring with each other, which is what happens. I'd rather it didn't, but maybe that's just because I don't know enough about genetics in reptile breeding. I know the 2014 CB Angolan python I'm in love with was almost certainly the result of inbreeding just because there weren't really enough unrelated animals around for it to have been otherwise.

[Andy_G]

But breeding the best of the best from a certain locality isn't the same as breeding the offspring back to the parents, then their offspring back to the parents/grandparents, then the best looking offspring with each other, which is what happens. I'd rather it didn't, but maybe that's just because I don't know enough about genetics in reptile breeding. I know the 2014 CB Angolan python I'm in love with was almost certainly the result of inbreeding just because there weren't really enough unrelated animals around for it to have been otherwise.


Do you think new blood gets introduced to the galapagos islands all the time? Island locality boas? Locality animals in general? They are distinct largely as a result of related animals with the same distinct attributes interbreeding with each other. Why it is that we have a problem with it in captivity when it happens VERY often everywhere in the wild? Is it because people get stuck on the whole "morph" thing? Just semantics? It's something I don't understand. Inbreeding is natural for these and many other animals. Anyone who denies this musn't have thought things through.

[scales.jp]

Do you think new blood gets introduced to the galapagos islands all the time? Island locality boas? Locality animals in general? They are distinct largely as a result of related animals with the same distinct attributes interbreeding with each other. Why it is that we have a problem with it in captivity when it happens VERY often everywhere in the wild? Is it because people get stuck on the whole "morph" thing? Just semantics? It's something I don't understand. Inbreeding is natural for these and many other animals. Anyone who denies this musn't have thought things through.

Which is why I specifically said "... but maybe that's just because I don't know enough about genetics in reptile breeding." I think most people, myself included, view inbreeding from a human standpoint because that's where we've been taught it's a bad thing. It can cause numerous health problems, deformities and death. You've seen Deliverance, right? (if blind, scaleless snakes ever end up playing a mean banjo, we'll know we've taken things too far).

As for inbreeding amongst wild animals, it can get pretty crazy!:
"Adactylidium: The single male offspring mite mates with all the daughters when they are still in the mother. The females, now impregnated, cut holes in their mother's body so that they can emerge to find new thrips eggs. The male emerges as well, but does not look for food or new mates, and dies after a few hours. The females die at the age of 4 days, when their own offspring eat them alive from the inside." (Wikipedia)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding

[Aaron_S]

But breeding the best of the best from a certain locality isn't the same as breeding the offspring back to the parents, then their offspring back to the parents/grandparents, then the best looking offspring with each other, which is what happens. I'd rather it didn't, but maybe that's just because I don't know enough about genetics in reptile breeding. The 2014 CB Angolan python I'm in love with was almost certainly the result of inbreeding at some level just because there weren't really enough unrelated animals around for it to have been otherwise.

It actually does mean breeding parents/grandparents and more often, siblings to one another to enhance the traits selected.

I'm personally about trying to diversify when and where possible. Ball pythons actually are relatively genetically diverse compared to other species.

For decades we continually pulled wild caught animals from Africa for breeding new morphs or just because we needed normal females to breed our morph boys to. The morph craze gets a lot of flack but it actually helped in a number of ways.

It's only been in recent years that breeders are buying less and less wild caught or farmed normals to add to their collection.

[Andy_G]

Which is why I specifically said "... but maybe that's just because I don't know enough about genetics in reptile breeding." I think most people, myself included, view inbreeding from a human standpoint because that's where we've been taught it's a bad thing. It can cause numerous health problems, deformities and death. You've seen Deliverance, right? (if blind, scaleless snakes ever end up playing a mean banjo, we'll know we've taken things too far).



Ha! It happens with "uncivilized" (read tribal) humans all the time as well where the gene pool is pretty small. Royalty also used to get a little cozy with family members. Once you can consider the whole picture and break the habit of what we have been taught, you will begin to realize that some things simply don't transfer over into other species. I'm not saying that anybopdy should make babies with their cousins, but reptiles, mammals, fish and birds do it all the time...as well as the aforementioned "uncivilized" humans.


At least you're honest in saying that you don't know a lot about reptile breeding and genetics and for that I give you credit and respect for. I really shouldn't have quoted just you. A few members who have demonstrated their thoughts on inbreeding in captivity have not thought out their own words in regards to wild populations yet they apparently feel they have superior vast self knowledge in regards to genetics. Quite elitist, not to mention incorrect. Everyone can believe what they want, but pushing an opinion on people while trying to shame them when it goes against reality isn't fair. It's not the first time a bias has overshadowed common practice accompanied by a misapplied concept or theory to support personal bias and feelings.

You are not an example of what I mention above. ;)

[RAD House]

Ha! It happens with "uncivilized" (read tribal) humans all the time as well where the gene pool is pretty small. Royalty also used to get a little cozy with family members. Once you can consider the whole picture and break the habit of what we have been taught, you will begin to realize that some things simply don't transfer over into other species. I'm not saying that anybopdy should make babies with their cousins, but reptiles, mammals, fish and birds do it all the time...as well as the aforementioned "uncivilized" humans.


At least you're honest in saying that you don't know a lot about reptile breeding and genetics and for that I give you credit and respect for. I really shouldn't have quoted just you. A few members who have demonstrated their thoughts on inbreeding in captivity have not thought out their own words in regards to wild populations yet they apparently feel they have superior vast self knowledge in regards to genetics. Quite elitist, not to mention incorrect. Everyone can believe what they want, but pushing an opinion on people while trying to shame them when it goes against reality isn't fair. It's not the first time a bias has overshadowed common practice accompanied by a misapplied concept or theory to support personal bias and feelings.

You are not an example of what I mention above. ;)

Excuse you, I know I have a superior vast self knowledge.

[Andy_G]

Excuse you, I know I have a superior vast self knowledge.

HAHA! I concede! :freakedout:

[jjhill001]

I don't think that inbreeding is as common in wild reptiles as people think. Aside frm the random islands and very strict ranges at least. I think the only way to know for sure would be to track and see how far baby snakes/other reptiles actually spread out from where they are born. It'd be an incredibly interesting case study.

Frogs at a pond, how far would they really spread in range after being born there?

In general inbreeding isn't as big a deal for me as purposefully breeding for physical defects that cause the animal problems. I've been assured in this thread the scaless animals are fine so I'm cool with it. I would be kinda butt hurt if I had a random one pop out of a supposedly pure rat snake.

I know that the scaleless Texas Rats came in first, I find it hard to believe that the scaleless corn snakes don't have that blood in them.

[TRD]

I still believe it's not the best to breed sibling among each other or the next generation back to the first. I get it why it's done, but one could just as well create major health issues with the same practice of getting an extra nice yellow (or whatever) animal because besides creating certain gene combinations for this yellow you could also simultaneously, and without knowing, create any unwanted and usually dormant genetic trait that has major drawbacks. At least we humans understand that you shouldn't mix blood, so it speak. It didn't just come out of nowhere or because civilization wanted it, there's plenty of research to back it up. Why would it be good to increase homozygosity in animals?

I get that in the wild it happens, but how many times, and does it repeatedly happen to the same snakes? I really doubt that.. The number of individuals that you need to maintain a viable gene pool isn't that big. I don't think we should justify the practice because populations in the wild also sometimes breed between related animals, there is still plenty of diversity there compared to animals which may have gone through various breeding programs to create morph 1, out of that created morph 2, and then make yet another morph with the same practice. There are plenty of examples around in animals that suffer greatly and have "race specific illnesses" ... that should ring some bells, I'd say.

[jjhill001]

I still believe it's not the best to breed sibling among each other or the next generation back to the first. I get it why it's done, but one could just as well create major health issues with the same practice of getting an extra nice yellow (or whatever) animal because besides creating certain gene combinations for this yellow you could also simultaneously, and without knowing, create any unwanted and usually dormant genetic trait that has major drawbacks. At least we humans understand that you shouldn't mix blood, so it speak. It didn't just come out of nowhere or because civilization wanted it, there's plenty of research to back it up. Why would it be good to increase homozygosity in animals?

I think that the more complex the animal the more likely it is to cause major drawbacks. We're seeing tigers in captivity with downs syndrome for example.

But then again like mentioned before there are still small uncontacted island tribes with maybe a pool of 30 people or so still going strong after who knows how long so its definitely an interesting and complex subject.

[scales.jp]

Is this the eyeless snake in question? (not sure if the link will work unless you log into Instagram first):
https://www.instagram.com/p/BMOHwLPh4gk/?hl=ja&tagged=eyelesssnake

With comments being made like "She's so cute", it could put ideas in unscrupulous breeders minds.:no:

[SerpentineDream]

Nope, the snake mentioned was a ball python and that one is a reticulated python.

I don't think comments on a post such as that one would inspire a breeder to select for any trait, harmful or otherwise. What breeders tend to do is look at the market and see what is selling and what isn't, listen to requests from customers ("Hey, do you have any of XYZ? Will you in the future?") and also look at what their colleagues and the big players are doing. You want to breed what you love but also have to consider if you'll be able to find homes for the babies.

[Scubadiver59]

I'm waiting for a 'cyclops' retic... :eek:

[SerpentineDream]

That would be creepier than Pennywise in "It."

*shudder*

[scales.jp]

There's a pet shop owner in Tokyo with a four-eyed snake! Well, it's actually a wild-caught two-headed four-lined rat snake (how's that for a mouthful of adjectives). It seems perfectly healthy and both heads feed. He also has a normal of the opposite sex, so I suppose he intends to breed them to see if he can reproduce the two-headed trait. Seeing as it's a wild-caught snake, there's a good chance that it would have reproduced naturally, so it'll be interesting to see what happens.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BYxzC5hAXoz/?hl=ja&taken-by=master.of.dragon

I haven't visited his shop, but it looks like it's more of a collection of unusual animals (yes, he has a scaleless corn snake!) and snakes that aren't commonly kept in Japan like a Gaboon viper and a Rhinocerous viper. I don't know what permit he has, as even with a dangerous animal permit it's practically impossible to buy venomous snakes here.