Do you like scaleless snakes?

sattva · 03-17-17, 09:31 AM

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** · 03-17-17, 09:32 AM

Simple answer is no.

**Andy_G** · 03-17-17, 09:38 AM

Also a no.

**Tsubaki** · 03-17-17, 11:23 AM

Definetly no

RAD House · 03-17-17, 11:45 AM

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 · 03-17-17, 11:56 AM

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

whistlepig · 03-17-17, 01:00 PM

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 · 03-17-17, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 03-17-17, 01:15 PM

No.

Scales are one of the cool traits of reptiles.

trailblazer295 · 03-17-17, 02:59 PM

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** · 03-17-17, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 03-17-17, 04:17 PM

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 · 03-17-17, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 03-17-17, 04:38 PM

Quote:

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 · 03-17-17, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whistlepig

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.