morphs and their possible defects Q

Every color morph is a deformity. . deformity as defined by dictionary.com 1. The state of being deformed. 2. A bodily malformation, distortion, or disfigurement. 3. A deformed person or thing. 4. Gross ugliness or distortion. To further define. Deformed as defined by dictionary.com 1. to mar the natural form or shape of; put out of shape; disfigure: In cases where the drug was taken during pregnancy, its effects deformed the infants. 2. to make ugly, ungraceful, or displeasing; mar the beauty of; spoil: The trees had been completely deformed by the force of the wind. 3. to change the form of; transform. 4. Geology, Mechanics. to subject to deformation: The metal was deformed under stress.–verb (used without object) 5. to undergo deformation.

If you look at definition number 3 you will see that all color morphs are deformities of the coloration of the animal. So for a true answer all color morphs are defects because they are not normals.

Sorry had to. I think all were covered as far as I can remember right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tattlife2001

Every color morph is a deformity. . deformity as defined by dictionary.com 1. The state of being deformed. 2. A bodily malformation, distortion, or disfigurement. 3. A deformed person or thing. 4. Gross ugliness or distortion. To further define. Deformed as defined by dictionary.com 1. to mar the natural form or shape of; put out of shape; disfigure: In cases where the drug was taken during pregnancy, its effects deformed the infants. 2. to make ugly, ungraceful, or displeasing; mar the beauty of; spoil: The trees had been completely deformed by the force of the wind. 3. to change the form of; transform. 4. Geology, Mechanics. to subject to deformation: The metal was deformed under stress.–verb (used without object) 5. to undergo deformation.

If you look at definition number 3 you will see that all color morphs are deformities of the coloration of the animal. So for a true answer all color morphs are defects because they are not normals.

Sorry had to. I think all were covered as far as I can remember right now.

---

Deformity implies a disfigurement of the animal in all of those definitions... I agree absolutely that a colour/pattern mutation is a defect (because it is), but not a deformity (unless you want to get really technical down to the mutated proteins which are causing the mutation to be expressed as it is).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Russ Lawson

Deformity implies a disfigurement of the animal in all of those definitions... I agree absolutely that a colour/pattern mutation is a defect (because it is), but not a deformity (unless you want to get really technical down to the mutated proteins which are causing the mutation to be expressed as it is).

---

I agree to a certain point but is a variation in color a defect? Are different colored dogs or even people defects? Maybe its just my interpretation but to me a defect implies something wrong. Deformity would imply a physical malformation. A variation in color or pattern is more of a mutation which is not necesarily a negative as a defect or deformity imply.

Thats how I interpret it at least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lesserlover

I was thinking about this earlier today. it would be nice to compile a list. Are tthere any other balls with kinks? Are balls with the defect of small eyes due to defect or poor incubation?

---

I believe that the super cinnamon/black pastels also have a tendency to kink along with the duck bill thing.

With caramel there was a thread questioning if female caramels can produce good eggs. I've heard 2nd hand that at least one breeder reports getting good eggs but there where also several examples of no good eggs from caramel females. If there even is an actual tendency for female caramels to lay bad eggs I'm wondering if whatever lets some breeders avoid the kinks also allows the females to produce good eggs .

For any new morph including supers of co-doms I wouldn't assume that both genders can reproduce until it's proven. Hopefully our favorite mutations are only skin deep but problems eventually surfaced with some older mutations so it could take a while to hear about any problems with the newer mutations.

Spiders may be homozygous lethal like the woma (whichever kind of woma produces pearl, recently there are reported to be two different mutations called woma). If true, it would only come into play when breeding spider X spider. I also very recently read that the spider and sable combo might be lethal.

One of my females produced a clutch on breeding loan with several small and missing eyes. It wasn’t limited to a morph and the parents weren’t related so I don't know what caused it but perhaps something about the incubation or development environment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kc261

I think 90% is WAY too high of a number. Even if it happens only 20% of the time, that is pretty significant if it is unknown or mostly unknown in other morphs.

Consider this, if you have a co-dom morph male, and you pair him to a normal female. Hatchlings of this morph sell for $250 (for simplicity, I'm going to ignore any price difference between males and females). If the female gives you a big clutch of 10 eggs (or you can think 2 females, 5 eggs each, if you prefer), you can expect about 5 morph babies, or $1250. However, even if only 20% of the hatchlings are defective, that reduces your expected sales to $1000. That's significant!

Let's use 80%, which would still be "not defective" based on your number. So, out of those 10 eggs, you can expect only 1 healthy morph hatchling. That's "ok" with you?

---

You're right. I didn't get my numbers right! What I meant to say was 90% no deformities (or 1 out of 10 eggs). So, the other way around:P

I am very interested in learning more about this. I feel there is something to be said about Albinos. I think that the lack of eye pigment causes vision disruptions, be it too much light or changes in perception that causes them to stike or be unsettled by everything that moves!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by West Coast Jungle

I agree to a certain point but is a variation in color a defect? Are different colored dogs or even people defects? Maybe its just my interpretation but to me a defect implies something wrong. Deformity would imply a physical malformation. A variation in color or pattern is more of a mutation which is not necesarily a negative as a defect or deformity imply.

Thats how I interpret it at least.

---

This is why I usually stick with the word mutation to describe variations from the wild-type, because words like "disfigurement" and "defect" imply negative consequences. Technically, the proteins causing mutations are disfigured, and thus defective (they don't do what they are supposed to due to misfolding caused by mutations carried over through translation). Whereas most defects would be seen to decrease the value of something, the ones that don't result in a disfigurement, or hinder the animal in some way actually increase the value to us because they are different looking. However, in the wild, most of these would be seen as a decrease in value because most mutations would stick out to predators - the likelihood that the animal with such mutations would be noticed, and subsequently preyed on would be much higher than in a wild-type individual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Russ Lawson

This is why I usually stick with the word mutation to describe variations from the wild-type, because words like "disfigurement" and "defect" imply negative consequences. Technically, the proteins causing mutations are disfigured, and thus defective (they don't do what they are supposed to due to misfolding caused by mutations carried over through translation). Whereas most defects would be seen to decrease the value of something, the ones that don't result in a disfigurement, or hinder the animal in some way actually increase the value to us because they are different looking. However, in the wild, most of these would be seen as a decrease in value because most mutations would stick out to predators - the likelihood that the animal with such mutations would be noticed, and subsequently preyed on would be much higher than in a wild-type individual.

---

except with ball pythons living as ground dwelling, nocturnal animals pigmentation and coloration are less important on the survival strategy than being able to hunt and find food, find shelter, etc. That is why SO many mutations have been found.

It is true that the more normal resembling morphs are more common, hypos, yellowbellies, abbarrent patterns, etc. But almost every year there are WC morphs like albinos, leucies and pieds. Sure there aren't as many compared to the animals that are more normal looking but the chances of a codom morph being found have to be higher because you end up with babies the first generation (the possibility of morph babies the first generation) with recessives both parents obviously have to have copies so the likely hood of two het albinos finding eachother, breeding successfully, the female successfully laying eggs and raising the babies is lower.

Its not like we're talking about a daiernal prey-type animals here (albino and piebald deer for example). Predators are ALL over those things because they stand out.

Pardon the spelling mistakes, the computer i'm on at the moment doesn't have spell check.