Scale less Corns anyone?

[Roy Munson]

See that's another issue... I don't believe any single person can prove something like that. Scientifically speaking, pigmentation should not effect skeletal structure. Definitive answers will only be obtained through research.

Huh? What do you mean "scentifically speaking"? You're not speaking scientifically; you're making assumptions based on your limited knowledge (no offense). The neural crest in vertebrates produces the precursor cells to the skull and spinal column and to pigment cells (among MANY other things). Pigmentation and spinal development are very closely tied together. No single person has "proved" anything, and I never claimed they did. But there's a lot of anecdotal evidence out there concerning spinal abnormalities in lavender corn snakes. Just because a guy in a lab coat didn't record these events doesn't mean they should be dismissed...

 

[toyah]

See that's another issue... I don't believe any single person can prove something like that. Scientifically speaking, pigmentation should not effect skeletal structure.

Why not? It can affect everything else.

Bleeding and clotting disorders, overall size and growth rate, fertility, digestion, fecundity, vision, hearing, sense of smell, motor skills, REM sleep patterns, kidney function, serotonin function and temperament are all things that are linked to colour mutations in rats (my main area of interest), off the top of my head.

We would probably be better thinking of the pigmentation change as a symptom or side-effect of an internal change we probably can't see, rather than thinking of the pigment change causing other issues ...

 

[Menhir]

In that thread, a member speculates on the lavender gene and the increased physiological problems associated with neural crest mutations in animals

I haven't read it so far, thanks for that link. Two things:
a) I don't breed them any more.
b) If they have problems and if it is due to the Lavender gene, I would neither buy such an animal, nor breed them.

If so, then who's your lemming leader, Michael?

We had a discussion long time ago about Amelanistic animals where I already stated that I would stop breeding them if they would suffer from the lack of pigment in their eyes under captivity circumstances. So, I think I hit you with the dog thing and you should think again if that sentence above was necesarry.

Chihuahua haters

Seems your world is really small since I'm not a chihuahua hater - I hate people that breed animals in a way such that the animals cannot give birth without having a surgery or with a spine form not allowing them to walk correctly.

Humans have been selectively modifying animals for a long time, man.

And for a an even longer time they are murdering each other. Brilliant argument.

but I personally don't need to consult "Menhir's list of acceptable modified species" before I make purchasing or breeding decisions.

Childish.

 

[KJUN]

We would probably be better thinking of the pigmentation change as a symptom or side-effect of an internal change we probably can't see, rather than thinking of the pigment change causing other issues ...

Bingo! Thanks for bringing it up, but most people don't realize that pigment changes my just be a small side-effect to other problems. Look at athymic rats. The lack of hair isn't the mutation - it is a side effect. I have long suspected some of our color mutations in snakes are similar.

STILL, (back to the original topic) if the animals (scalelessness in this case) survive well under captive conditions, doesn't seem to suffer unnecessary pain, etc....I can't see how it is different from albinism. Neither trait would be good in wild snakes, but they do fine under captive conditions. Either BOTH traits I use here are "morally wrong" or they are both NOT. Of course, if there DOES turn out to be something unhealthy about scalelessness, then that would make them more like "calico" and less like "albino." Not many reasonable people support the idea of breeding "calico" corns for the pet trade.

 

[KJUN]

> b) If they have problems and if it is due to the Lavender gene, I would neither buy such an animal, nor breed them.
[snip]
We had a discussion long time ago about Amelanistic animals where I already stated that I would stop breeding them if they would suffer from the lack of pigment in their eyes under captivity circumstances.


So you say it is OK if they DON'T have problems under CAPTIVE conditions, right? So what is the problem with scaleless corns as long as is appears that they do NOT have problems under captive conditions, either? Well?

> I hate people that breed animals in a way such that the animals cannot give birth without having a surgery or with a spine form not allowing them to walk correctly.

Fine - how does this apply the the scaleless corns? Forgive me for bringing it back on topic, but what evidence has anyone given that they do not do well in CAPTIVE CONDITIONS - just like your albino reference? I admit they wouldn't do well in the wild (SLIGHTLY increased rate of moisture loss, etc.), but is this a meaningful loss in captivity? Apparently not.

If, by your rules, albinos (which would suffer in the wild) are OK since they do fine in captivity, then why wouldn't scaleless corns be OK if they do fine in captivity? I'm not defending scaleless corns - I'm asking for the difference between then an albino corns IF they do well under CAPTIVE conditions?

KJ

 

[Kokopelli]

doi I am an idiot. Yes, Scientifically(auto-correct be damned)

And no it has nothing to do with his position or job. I simply believe that such studies require a deal more specimens- from different places and bloodlines, to prove that the issue is related to a specific gene rather than say- a bloodline.

I really do appreciate everyone here and I don't think anyone's point of view is less valid, I have no idea what's your educational background, so I am not judging according to it.

All I am saying is that a study on a larger scale(pun not intended) is required to make such a statement 100% true. There are many differentials in this equation and one person alone, even if given a lot of time and proper tools- would still need a wider research scope to make his conclusions absolute.

That's my opinion anyways

 

[KJUN]

doi I am an idiot. Yes, Scientifically(auto-correct be damned)

And no it has nothing to do with his position or job. I simply believe that such studies require a deal more specimens- from different places and bloodlines, to prove that the issue is related to a specific gene rather than say- a bloodline.

I really do appreciate everyone here and I don't think anyone's point of view is less valid, I have no idea what's your educational background, so I am not judging according to it.

All I am saying is that a study on a larger scale(pun not intended) is required to make such a statement 100% true. There are many differentials in this equation and one person alone, even if given a lot of time and proper tools- would still need a wider research scope to make his conclusions absolute.

That's my opinion anyways

I pretty much agree with everything there, and I'm pleased to read you "saying" it.

HOWEVER, you seem to accept lavenders as safe pending further investigation but deem scaleless corns unsafe without giving it NEAR the chance that you give the idea that the lavender mutation has negative side effects. I'm sorry, but I can think of no word except hypocrisy to describe how I seem to be reading your stance. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Scalelessness and lavender are similar in that they are both simple recessive mutations. If they DO get found to be bad, they can quickly and easily be weeded out - if deemed necessary and desired. What is bothering to me is that you just seem to reject one out-of-hand and accept the other the same way with no rhyme or reason for why one is considered OK and the other evil.

 

[Kokopelli]

I never said I sought to cease all selective breedings. That's taking my words to the extreme.
First, it is my belief that altering a pigment and removing all scales on a snake are two different things, one of which is more extreme than the other, and one probably will have more impact than the other.

I am not accepting any sort of morph as "alright". Because I really can't tell for sure.
We won't enjoy any sort of major funding and there won't be any huge studies on the matter anytime soon- progression is a very human need and I don't believe it can be stopped altogether.

I do not wish to rule out the option for breeding snakes based on inaccuracies, but I also do believe that patience -can- be utilized when it comes to the more extreme "experiments" out there.
It's not all black and white, I don't want to say that they are 100% fine and healthy without knowing all the details. That doesn't mean I am eager to declare that they -are- suffering based on inaccuracies.

 

[KJUN]

> I never said I sought to cease all selective breedings. That's taking my words to the extreme.

No, you didn't. I didn't put words in your mouth, either. I ASKED what is the difference - if the animals don't suffer - between scalelessness and the other traits.

> First, it is my belief that altering a pigment and removing all scales on a snake are two different things, one of which is more extreme than the other, and one probably will have more impact than the other.

Possible, but isn't a striped bloodred snow corn pretty extreme, too. I understand you have drawn the line of what YOU think is OK. I'm asking you to explain WHY that line is at THAT spot. Obviously, you are under no obligation to explain yourself - or even to BE ABLE to explain yourself - but if you want us to possibly see it from your point of view (and maybe even come to agree with you), you really do need to explain your reasonings. Right now, it just seems arbitrary to me. Maybe it is arbitrary. That's OK, too, but don't expect many people to agree on the SAME arbitrary point.

Besides, it isn't like these things are SKINLESS. Just think of it as a step backwards in evolution to a cacealian! LOL.

> We won't enjoy any sort of major funding and there won't be any huge studies on the matter anytime soon-

There would be if this mattered to anyone with real money......lol.

> It's not all black and white, I don't want to say that they are 100% fine and healthy without knowing all the details. That doesn't mean I am eager to declare that they -are- suffering based on inaccuracies.

Your tone and attitude today seems like a different person from last night. These discussions are much more mature an illustrative. Admit it - you were drunk, right? :dancer: :laugh01: :rofl:

 

[Kokopelli]

I can't say I like your tone, I am assuming you are trying to make the discussion more light hearted... and no, I don't drink alcohol mostly.

I draw the line at the point where you begin to alter physiology beyond coloration. Also, I am not too keen on the morphs that pile up more and more defects... like the Plasma morph for instance, or Avalanche

1- Simple color related morphs have occurred in the wild, and they have successfully bred on and lived a "full life". It may effect them in one way or another, but they have survived nature which presents harsh conditions and still- these snake persevered.

2- We know that most simple morphs are a product of a single defect. I cannot say that piling up more and more abnormalities into a single snake will not have an accumulating effect on such snakes. Not a few breeders have affiliated certain behaviors or problems with a specific morphs. I've heard a lot about people stating snow cornsnakes are more aggressive than others et cetera.
Such morphs don't really occur in the wild, and so we have no proof that they can survive on their own- not because I need them hardy in order to keep them. It is because that among other things, nature does not allow those snakes who can't make it due to illnesses or kinks that really burden them, to reproduce.

3- The snake's current form is the product of millions of years of evolution. To accelerate such an evolution towards an unknown destination, that strikes me as dangerous. No animal is shaped the way it is for no reason, their shape was honed through God knows how many years to best suit their environment. Sure, you're right if you'll say that we don't need snakes to be as hardy- but look at dogs today, some are too small to reproduce on their own and die without surgery or without someone to actually help them consummate the thing. I don't want to see snakes ending up the same way.

 

[Menhir]

So you say it is OK if they DON'T have problems under CAPTIVE conditions, right?

As long as the animal is not disabled (including its natural behaviour) I would agree to that. I have problems with a Pantherophis lacking the ventral scales with their special "hook" (I'm missing the english word) on the side that allows them to climb especially well.
To me, and this is a personal thing, being only able to live in a deli cup with news paper beneath it is at least questionable.

So what is the problem with scaleless corns as long as is appears that they do NOT have problems under captive conditions, either? Well?

I once spoke to someone owning scaleless Bitis, no sand, no natural things beneath it, definetly different than scaled animals... thats what you hear privately.

Fine - how does this apply the the scaleless corns?

It was an example that I gave what people have done to other animals because the look was more important than their health. Dogs etc. were mentioned and I wanted to make clear that these massive changes also come with extreme forms that are in fact unhealthy. The displasy that Dean mentioned is another very good example.

then why wouldn't scaleless corns be OK if they do fine in captivity? I'm not defending scaleless corns - I'm asking for the difference between then an albino corns IF they do well under CAPTIVE conditions?

I cannot tell you an excact scientific fact that will convince you - this is the reason this whole thread has 17 pages already. All I can do is describe a feeling about this animals that is, in my case, based on the fluid thing, the ability of protecting skin and climbing and what I've heard about the Bits animals.

But let's do some little excurse back to the armless polar bear. Following your thoughts, the armless polar bear can be breed without any ethical retention. It will swim, maybe it learns to walk upright (super for the visitors of the zoo), catches the food given by the care takers. Okay, maybe it can't run like his brothers and sisters, but he won't feel pain about it - and he's in captivity. Okay, lets say we bred this bears, I call them ALs, for a few generations and suddenly it appears: the one legged armless polar bear. Again, he will swim (maybe more in circles... but hey, captivity, you know?) and here comes the best part - it will jump upright on one leg. What a fun for the whole family to look at and the kids will laugh. The one legged, armless polar bear (luckily, not a black one) will feel no pain, won't be sad, won't die because he's in captivity but still, my feelings tell me that this is wrong.
In the same way wrong, as snakes that lack their scales.

Thats it and I think that I've nothing more to say.
Michael

 

[KJUN]

I once spoke to someone owning scaleless Bitis, no sand, no natural things beneath it, definetly different than scaled animals... thats what you hear privately.

So, he kept it that way, but did he have to. YOU might here it from that guy, but the first scaleless gophersnake I saw wouldn't live longer than a week post-hatch. NOW, we have two different species of Elaphe with scalelessness, and what I'm told in private by both breeders (who are both friends) is opposite of your Bitis example and my gophersnake example. Deal with it.

 

[Roy Munson]

I haven't read it so far, thanks for that link. Two things:
a) I don't breed them any more.
b) If they have problems and if it is due to the Lavender gene, I would neither buy such an animal, nor breed them.

That's cool. You should remove the animal from your avatar then. It may send the wrong message. When and why did you stop breeding lavs? If it was due to alleged abnormalities associated with the gene, then are you sure that there aren't similar problems associated with other morphs? It seems that if we're to follow your example of ethical responsibility, then you/we need to be certain before we breed ANY mutant corn. Is your existing breeding stock proven to NOT carry the lav gene in het form?

And I may be asking for it by bringing it up, but I still breed lavenders. Lots of people do (though that's not a justification, just a fact). Is this "ethically responsible"?

We had a discussion long time ago about Amelanistic animals where I already stated that I would stop breeding them if they would suffer from the lack of pigment in their eyes under captivity circumstances. So, I think I hit you with the dog thing and you should think again if that sentence above was necesarry.

Is lack of eye pigment the only possible deleterious aspect of an amel's makeup? They must be more prone to UV damage on their bodies too. This could be the same with scaleless, or at least analogous to the water-loss problem. So if we keep captive amels out of UV and scaleless corns properly hydrated, what's the difference? I don't understand the point you were trying to make in your last sentence, so I won't argue it. But then again, I found your original lemming statement to be intentionally inflammatory to begin with. (And childish, though I'm not as much of a fan of that insult as you are. It's a cop-out.)

Seems your world is really small since I'm not a chihuahua hater - I hate people that breed animals in a way such that the animals cannot give birth without having a surgery or with a spine form not allowing them to walk correctly.

Gee, I'm sorry I "misinterpreted" your "handbag alien" description to mean that you disliked chihuahuas. No rational person would have interpreted those words that way, eh?

And for a an even longer time they are murdering each other. Brilliant argument.

How concerned should I be with how you rate my arguments when you come up with gems like this? What an analogy! Humankind's longtime modification of animals to increase their utility or desirability is analogous to the murders perpetrated by a small percentage of society. Now that's brilliant, man. Animal modification is acceptable to society. Heck, you do it (unless you only breed normals now). Murder is unacceptable to society. Maybe you need to explain your brilliant rebuttal again to me. I'm not seeing a valid point.

Childish.

What was so childish about it? You're ok with some animal modifications, and you don't like others. Me too. If we made a Venn diagram of what we each considered acceptable, there would probably only be the slightest divergence from a complete overlap of our circles. I don't like these scaleless corns either. I wish the gene didn't exist, and I hope it doesn't propagate. But I admit that it's a selfish wish, and only based on my ill-defined and emotional response to the mutation. As such, I refuse to pass judgement on what others do with these snakes. You seem to be a more judgemental person than I am, but as far as I'm concerned, your reasons for not liking the propagation of these snakes are as ill-defined and purely emotional as mine. We both propagate mutations in corns without full knowledge of all possible negative consequences to the well-being of the snakes. Maybe you can more convincingly explain how we're more "ethically responsible" than the scaleless breeders, because I'd like to feel superior to them too.

 

[Menhir]

You should remove the animal from your avatar then.

Any more nitpicking?

Is your existing breeding stock proven to NOT carry the lav gene in het form?

My breeding stock is not important for this discussion. At the end of this year, my breeding "stock" will only consist of normal colored animals.

Is this "ethically responsible"?

If you do not know about health problems, if from all you can judge these animals look healthy and there is no indication for problems - I'd say that there is no problem. As soon as you know about health problems, disabilities in natural behavior or at least there are strong indications, I think that one should think twice about breeding such mutations.

Is lack of eye pigment the only possible deleterious aspect of an amel's makeup?

Absolutely not. But this is the wrong way to argue. This again is the direction of "since others do worse, we can do bad".

Gee, I'm sorry I "misinterpreted" your "handbag alien" description to mean that you disliked chihuahuas. No rational person would have interpreted those words that way, eh?

How can a rational thinking person, a person that keeps a horse, three cats, snakes, and geckos hate an animal that did never choose to be born as a handbag alien?

I think we are beating a dead horse.
Michael

 

[KJUN]

My breeding stock is not important for this discussion.

I believe it is. When you say other people are wrong (BHB) for the animals THEY maintain, that opens up YOUR collection for review. If you can't take that, then you shouldn't judge others. That's how I see things, anyway.

At the end of this year, my breeding "stock" will only consist of normal colored animals.

So why at the end of the year? If morphs are wrong, don't keep them now....or are you interested in the money you'll make from breeding these WRONG morphs.

ALSO, unless your so-called normals are locality pure from animals bred together randomly, then you have a morph. Period. It might not be an albino, but it HAS been selectively bred. Chances are that it wouldn't survive as well in the wild as a CH animal, so who knows what damage you are doing to the future. (Not my or your words.....someone else used them.) I know - "right and wrong" are based on arbitrary lines and you just draw your line somewhere else.

That mentality is like saying "anyone driving faster that you is a careless jackass and anyone driving slower than you is a thoughtless jerk!" You can't argue with someone that sees their POV as correct based on an arbitrary decision that even they can't defend. What about the guy that says scaleless corns should be bred b/c they MIGHT damage the future but then talks about breeding hybrids with (apparently) no concern over any potential damage THEY might cause.

I really didn't like the scaleless corns much. Not my bag. However, I almost want to buy some just the breed them just to sell to my buyers across the pond now......:dancer: I'm COMPLETELY joking, but one of the largest buyers for scaleless ratsnakes is on your side of the pond - not mine. Maybe you should try to talk sense into them??

 

[Roy Munson]

I think we are beating a dead horse.
Michael

On that, we agree completely.
-Dean

 

[Menhir]

So why at the end of the year?

Because I decided to concentrate on breeding other animals.

....or are you interested in the money you'll make from breeding these WRONG morphs.

Quote me where I wrote that all morphs are wrong. And to stick to your example if hidden deseases in morphs - each randomly bred pure local animal can come with invisible deseases. Btw. the money thing is quite rude I think. I fought a few fights in the last years for morph breeders to be accepted in europe, I've recently written a german book about morphs and I think that my prices have always been in the lower end. Oh, and I'm known for giving animals into good hands for lower prices if necesarry...
But it seems we are at a point where it is more interesting to discuss me as a person instead of sticking to the scaleless animals.

ALSO, unless your so-called normals are locality pure from animals bred together randomly, then you have a morph. Period.

One of the best arguments against people that think their pure locale animals are any better than morphs. I don't see the connection to the scaleless thing - I also don't see what me quitting "morph" breeding has to do with the scaleless thing.

You can't argue with someone that sees their POV as correct based on an arbitrary decision that even they can't defend.

I think me and ofters have mentioned quite a few things that distingush these animals from other morphs.

 

[ZoologyMajor]

Wow this thread is still going on! I gave up trying to talk to brick walls long ago. :shrugs:

 

[Rich Z]

Hmm, interesting thread. Anyone have any qualms about me moving it to the genetics and cultivars forum?

In the meantime, some thoughts....

First off, this mutations was not PLANNED nor engineered, it just HAPPENED. So obviously we are looking at yet another experiment that Mother Nature is trying out to see how well it works. Nothing is inherently WRONG about such an animal coming into being, at all. It just IS.

But what about propagating it commercially? Well, interesting dilemma. Suppose for a moment that YOU hatched out the very first one ever. What would you have done? Euthanize it? Keep it as an interesting pet without breeding it to even find out if it is a genetic trait? What? Planning on buying something like this gives you quite a bit of free will in how you go about thinking about it, but suppose you were holding the hot potato with that very first one? But if I were to have been the first one to hatch one out, I'm certain I would have felt compelled to work with it out of academic interest. And quite certainly I would eventually produce more than I would want to keep. At that point, yes, I would offer them for sale. I couldn't bring myself to euthanize an animal that was healthy otherwise. But I seriously doubt the price tag would be very big....

Personally, they don't do much for me, and I would not be interested in buying any. I held a scaleless Texas Rat Snake at Dr. Bechtel's many moons ago and it gave me the creeps. "Latex" came to mind.... Quite frankly, making a Blizzard Scaleless would probably look like a giant maggot. :eek1:

 

[KJUN]

Personally, they don't do much for me, and I would not be interested in buying any. I held a scaleless Texas Rat Snake at Dr. Bechtel's many moons ago and it gave me the creeps. "Latex" came to mind.... Quite frankly, making a Blizzard Scaleless would probably look like a giant maggot. :eek1:

For the record, many people think a NORMAL snake feels wierd and gives them the creeps.

Love the maggot comment, but some friends and I have already discussed possible names for a scaleless pweter...and I wouldn't even write those names in a "hell"-style forum.....lol.