Genetic Diversity in a Collection

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pythonfriend

i would buy a butterscotch hypo from one breeder, and an orange ghost from a different breeder, and then i buy a spider het hypo and a pewter het hypo from a third breeder.

no inbreeding at all. maybe they were related at one point a few generations ago. but then, with butterscotch x orange ghost, maybe their ancestry is seperate going back all the way to africa. it happens all the time that people make their "extra gene 100% het albino" using an albino they got from one breeder, and their "visual albino with extra gene" using an albino they got from a different breeder.

and none of this applies to dominant and incomplete dominant morphs, which make up the majority of BP breeding projects. where is the inbreeding when i buy a black pastel here, a pinstripe there, and a bamboo from Noah from Ghana, and a calico from someone on craigslist?

---

That is great when you have quite a bit invest but when you do not like most people you get inbreeding. You can say what you would do but in reality you have done it. Also with what you stated what are you going do for the super bamboo? You can make claims as to what you would do but until you actually do it everything is just empty words.

Sent from my SGH-T599N using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrLang

Just sayin'

---

Inbred for 2-3 generations at most to prove out your morph. Then outcrossed to very different animals. I have two bumblebees in my collection, they both carry spider and they both came from a founding animal but I would bet thousands that their COI is low as can be. There are thousands of spider morphs out there and to say that they are inbred is quite ridiculous. Same with retics, do you have any idea how many clark strain albino heterozygous and homozygous animals are out there? All came from one founder, all carry his genes, but virtually none of them carry a high percentage of the same genes now because they have been so heavily outcrossed to create new combinations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T&C Exotics

That is great when you have quite a bit invest but when you do not like most people you get inbreeding. You can say what you would do but in reality you have done it. Also with what you stated what are you going do for the super bamboo? You can make claims as to what you would do but until you actually do it everything is just empty words.

---

i guess in that case, if i had a bamboo and wanted a super bamboo and could not afford a second one, i would breed back once.

i never said anything about breeding back once. thats not the issue and with recessives its often necessary. but from there, inbreeding goes down and down and down. lets say i get a male visual recessive that is rare and expensive. the first generation of visuals i produce would be inbred, the second generation not so much, and in the third generation inbreeding will be way down.

i just dont agree with a blanket statement like the one you made earlier:

Quote:

---

Constant inbreeding no matter what. Inbreeding is a fact of breeding snakes.

---

lets take an extreme example. a medium-sized breeder takes out a mortgage to get a male visual sunglow, and needs to work the project hard to have a chance of making back the money. first step would be to breed it to 4 different morph females that are unrelated to each other. now you have a production of hets going, all from the same male but 4 different females. lets call them group 1, group 2, group 3, and group 4. now you raise them up and start pairing het to het, that gives you the first generation of visuals, from half-brother to half-sister breedings. you get visuals from group 1 to group 2, and from group 3 to group 4, and so on. these visuals have an inbreeding coefficient of 12.5%. now you want to breed visual to het, to stop the production of 66% possible hets and get more visuals. so you breed visuals from group 1 to group 2 breedings to 100% hets from group 3 or group 4. more visuals, inbreeding coefficient for each of them: 12.5%.

you keep breeding the original visual to the 4 different females, so you have more of the 100% hets incoming in the 4 groups. and you have visuals from breeding one group to another group, that you can breed to 100% hets from the other two groups. you can just keep going and produce more and more visuals with more and more breeding pairs of visual x 100% het. maximum inbreeding coefficient: 12,5%. and if you breed a visual (from group 1 to group 3) to a visual (from group 2 to group 4), the inbreeding coefficient will again be 12,5%.

but you can also breed one of the 1st generation visuals to other unrelated BPs, and then breed a different one of the 1st generation visuals to the 100% hets. for example, you breed a visual (from group 2 to group 3) to different unrelated morphs, then breed a visual (from group 1 to group 4) to these hets. the visuals you get will have an inbreeding coefficient of 6.25%. now the inbreeding coefficient starts to come down. you never got above 12.5%, and now that you have different visuals out of your own production to choose from, you can reduce the inbreeding coefficient even further.

and all this time other breeders did the same thing, and now you can go to a reptile show and trade a sunglow lesser and a sunglow calico (from your production) for a sunglow banana (with an entirely different story but tracing back to the same line) and the inbreeding coefficient is down to below 1% when you now breed visual to visual. and thats how it is with VPI axanthic or lavender albino or piebald. all the morphs that have been bred into piebald are also outbreedings of the piebald gene to something else. firefly pied, super enchi pied, panda pied, albino pied, lightning pied, sterling pied, spied, lesser pied, hypo pied, dreamsicle, pied clown. their existence means that a whole lot of different genetics has found their way into the recessive project. its well-connected to the gene pool as a whole. and then a new morph comes along, lets say bamboo, fresh genetics from Ghana, been worked with in Ghana, and someone makes a bamboo pied, an even more genes find their way from africa into our multi-gene designer morph projects.

i think inbreeding is low, and for a breeder, its easy to keep it low. people LOVE to try out entirely new world first morph combinations all the time, and that causes genes cross from one project to another, and even from one recessive project to another recessive project, all the time. in addition to new morphs from africa bringing new genes from africa, there is the flood of normal BP hatchlings from africa, and people often use some of them as female breeders or try them out as dinkers. i think the genetic health of captive-bred designer morph BPs is really good, its a really large and diverse gene-pool that is constantly getting new genes from the wild population in africa.

the question this thread asks is: should a breeder try to represent genetic diversity within his/her collection, or is it fine to have a collection where a lot of inbreeding is going on, and it does not matter how much inbreeding you do? i say embrace the diversity and do your best to mix up and recombine the genes, and i dont think that contradicts refining the genes.

So locality phenotypes aren't a product of inbreeding?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brandon Osborne

So locality phenotypes aren't a product of inbreeding?

---

Lets save some time, they were already asked that and this is their response:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pythonfriend

i ignore cases where wildly inbred line-bred BPs are still doing fine, because when determining if smoking cigarettes is healthy or not, i also ignore cases of 105-year-old smokers. 105 year old smokers dont get that old because they smoke, and line-bred BPs that are doing fine are not doing fine because of inbreeding. they are the ones that got lucky, in spite of evidence that the risk of bad things happening is elevated, bad things didnt happen.

---

counter arguments were posted and ignored :)

I just find it odd that people with the vast genetic knowledge in this thread promote the blind randomized approach to breeding, especially in the name of health, but deny the benefits of selective high homozygosity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pythonfriend

i guess in that case, if i had a bamboo and wanted a super bamboo and could not afford a second one, i would breed back once.

i never said anything about breeding back once. thats not the issue and with recessives its often necessary. but from there, inbreeding goes down and down and down. lets say i get a male visual recessive that is rare and expensive. the first generation of visuals i produce would be inbred, the second generation not so much, and in the third generation inbreeding will be way down.

i just dont agree with a blanket statement like the one you made earlier:



lets take an extreme example. a medium-sized breeder takes out a mortgage to get a male visual sunglow, and needs to work the project hard to have a chance of making back the money. first step would be to breed it to 4 different morph females that are unrelated to each other. now you have a production of hets going, all from the same male but 4 different females. lets call them group 1, group 2, group 3, and group 4. now you raise them up and start pairing het to het, that gives you the first generation of visuals, from half-brother to half-sister breedings. you get visuals from group 1 to group 2, and from group 3 to group 4, and so on. these visuals have an inbreeding coefficient of 12.5%. now you want to breed visual to het, to stop the production of 66% possible hets and get more visuals. so you breed visuals from group 1 to group 2 breedings to 100% hets from group 3 or group 4. more visuals, inbreeding coefficient for each of them: 12.5%.

you keep breeding the original visual to the 4 different females, so you have more of the 100% hets incoming in the 4 groups. and you have visuals from breeding one group to another group, that you can breed to 100% hets from the other two groups. you can just keep going and produce more and more visuals with more and more breeding pairs of visual x 100% het. maximum inbreeding coefficient: 12,5%. and if you breed a visual (from group 1 to group 3) to a visual (from group 2 to group 4), the inbreeding coefficient will again be 12,5%.

but you can also breed one of the 1st generation visuals to other unrelated BPs, and then breed a different one of the 1st generation visuals to the 100% hets. for example, you breed a visual (from group 2 to group 3) to different unrelated morphs, then breed a visual (from group 1 to group 4) to these hets. the visuals you get will have an inbreeding coefficient of 6.25%. now the inbreeding coefficient starts to come down. you never got above 12.5%, and now that you have different visuals out of your own production to choose from, you can reduce the inbreeding coefficient even further.

and all this time other breeders did the same thing, and now you can go to a reptile show and trade a sunglow lesser and a sunglow calico (from your production) for a sunglow banana (with an entirely different story but tracing back to the same line) and the inbreeding coefficient is down to below 1% when you now breed visual to visual. and thats how it is with VPI axanthic or lavender albino or piebald. all the morphs that have been bred into piebald are also outbreedings of the piebald gene to something else. firefly pied, super enchi pied, panda pied, albino pied, lightning pied, sterling pied, spied, lesser pied, hypo pied, dreamsicle, pied clown. their existence means that a whole lot of different genetics has found their way into the recessive project. its well-connected to the gene pool as a whole. and then a new morph comes along, lets say bamboo, fresh genetics from Ghana, been worked with in Ghana, and someone makes a bamboo pied, an even more genes find their way from africa into our multi-gene designer morph projects.

i think inbreeding is low, and for a breeder, its easy to keep it low. people LOVE to try out entirely new world first morph combinations all the time, and that causes genes cross from one project to another, and even from one recessive project to another recessive project, all the time. in addition to new morphs from africa bringing new genes from africa, there is the flood of normal BP hatchlings from africa, and people often use some of them as female breeders or try them out as dinkers. i think the genetic health of captive-bred designer morph BPs is really good, its a really large and diverse gene-pool that is constantly getting new genes from the wild population in africa.

the question this thread asks is: should a breeder try to represent genetic diversity within his/her collection, or is it fine to have a collection where a lot of inbreeding is going on, and it does not matter how much inbreeding you do? i say embrace the diversity and do your best to mix up and recombine the genes, and i dont think that contradicts refining the genes.

---

Give one example of inbreeding in ball pythons having any negative impact on them. This would not include lethal combos or lethal supers.

Sent from my SGH-T599N using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T&C Exotics

Give one example of inbreeding in ball pythons having any negative impact on them. This would not include lethal combos or lethal supers.

Sent from my SGH-T599N using Tapatalk

---

I'm not sure why this wouldnt include lethal combos or lethal supers? They are genes, which if pulled together closely through inbreeding (or outcrossing) can cause deleterious effects for the animal (death). Inbreeding "can" be bad, so can outcrossing. Outcrossing can be bad, and it can also be good. The genes and probability dont give a hoot what genes are selected, they just are. Which goes back to my point of this whole thread being rather pointless. Genes are either bad or they are not. Inbreeding or outcrossing alone do not cause deleterious effects in animals, this isnt an issue that can be blanketed by saying one method or the other is "bad".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OctagonGecko729

I'm not sure why this wouldnt include lethal combos or lethal supers? They are genes, which if pulled together closely through inbreeding (or outcrossing) can cause deleterious effects for the animal (death). Inbreeding "can" be bad, so can outcrossing. Outcrossing can be bad, and it can also be good. The genes and probability dont give a hoot what genes are selected, they just are. Which goes back to my point of this whole thread being rather pointless. Genes are either bad or they are not. Inbreeding or outcrossing alone do not cause deleterious effects in animals, this isnt an issue that can be blanketed by saying one method or the other is "bad".

---

Lethal combos lethal supers no matter how unrelated are still lethal. A hgw x spider is lethal no matter the relation.

I am not saying outcrossing is bad at . I am however saying that inbreeding is not bad. Take an example already given here. The grey banded kings. They are extremely inbred with no issues at all.

Sent from my SGH-T599N using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T&C Exotics

Lethal combos lethal supers no matter how unrelated are still lethal. A hgw x spider is lethal no matter the relation.

I am not saying outcrossing is bad at . I am however saying that inbreeding is not bad. Take an example already given here. The grey banded kings. They are extremely inbred with no issues at all.

Sent from my SGH-T599N using Tapatalk

---

We agree completely.

I think you misunderstood my last post. I was pointing out that it doesnt matter whether those genes are inbred or not they produce lethality. It is a good example of what I have been arguing this entire thread. I was just pointing out that your exclusion of lethal combos shouldnt be an exclusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OctagonGecko729

We agree completely.

I think you misunderstood my last post. I was pointing out that it doesnt matter whether those genes are inbred or not they produce lethality. It is a good example of what I have been arguing this entire thread. I was just pointing out that your exclusion of lethal combos shouldnt be an exclusion.

---

I think the reason t&c is excluding lethal combos and supers is because inbreeding doesn't cause them to be lethal. They are legal regardless of relation. The question, as I took it, was it asking for an example where inbreeding causes lethality that would not also occur with the right outbred combination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sorraia

I think the reason t&c is excluding lethal combos and supers is because inbreeding doesn't cause them to be lethal. They are legal regardless of relation. The question, as I took it, was it asking for an example where inbreeding causes lethality that would not also occur with the right outbred combination.

---

Exactly. As far as I have been able to find through hours of searching and talking multiple top breeders there has been no issues at all with inbred ball pythons. I have heard from quite a few that stated they have done multiple generations being inbred with no issues but not a single situation where it has caused any issues.

So again I call out all who day it is so bad. Find one single inbred ball python that has issues linked to inbreeding.

There are people on this very thread that demand proof of everything and is unable to provide proof to what they say. I just makes me laugh when the "scientist" who needs proof on everything is unable to provide what is always demanded by them.

Sent from my SGH-T599N using Tapatalk

Gotcha, yeah we agree then, and i see what you were meaning by the exclusion now. All inbreeding does is crowd similar genes together, but without "bad" genes the crowding doesnt matter at all. Of course people can argue that it increases the likelyhood of bad traits being expressed but I think we would both agree that bad breeding practices can be done with both outcrossing and inbreeding.

Its pretty simple, we breed animals, if a deleterious trait pops up, you stop breeding them, to anything, no matter how high or low the COI is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OctagonGecko729

Gotcha, yeah we agree then, and i see what you were meaning by the exclusion now. All inbreeding does is crowd similar genes together, but without "bad" genes the crowding doesnt matter at all. Of course people can argue that it increases the likelyhood of bad traits being expressed but I think we would both agree that bad breeding practices can be done with both outcrossing and inbreeding.

Its pretty simple, we breed animals, if a deleterious trait pops up, you stop breeding them, to anything, no matter how high or low the COI is.

---

Exactly. We could do nothing but outcross and have severely deformed babies. If an animal produces bad babies one year I do the same pairing the next. If all is good I was fault if not they are retired. Simple as that.

Sent from my SGH-T599N using Tapatalk

You could use this exact same logic to defend inbreeding in humans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krynn

You could use this exact same logic to defend inbreeding in humans.

---

Except in humans it has been proven that inbreeding produces genetic defects.

Sent from my SGH-T599N using Tapatalk

You sure can use the same logic for humans.
However, humans are full of crappy genes. It's not like the defects or mutations pop out of no where. It is already in our genome. Inbreeding just makes it more likely to occur.
And if there is a health issue, people today in 2014 can generally live with it or with medical assistance.
No one lives the Spartan way and culls deformed or unfit offspring any more. And people rarely look at their genealogy to track whether or not they should have children with a certain person or not. (Although, I'm paranoid so I had to ask my boyfriend about his family's health history)

But this is where it differs between animals and humans.
Natural selection culls the unfit and deformed in the wild, so animals don't have as many issues.
And breeders act as that selection in captivity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T&C Exotics

Except in humans it has been proven that inbreeding produces genetic defects.

Sent from my SGH-T599N using Tapatalk

---

The mechanism is the same across the animal kingdom, and you can find many examples in many different species (including snakes).

Dont get me wrong, I am not of the opinion that all inbreeding is bad. Yes line breeding can be an effective way to make healthy animals. What concerns me is when people seem to be under the impression that inbreeding is never bad. I think that understanding what inbreeding depression is, what causes it, and how it works is beneficial for any animal breeder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by satomi325

It's not like the defects or mutations pop out of no where. It is already in our genome. Inbreeding just makes it more likely to occur.
.

---

Sorry. Not mutations. lol.
I meant to say, deleterious alleles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krynn

The mechanism is the same across the animal kingdom, and you can find many examples in many different species (including snakes).

Dont get me wrong, I am not of the opinion that all inbreeding is bad. Yes line breeding can be an effective way to make healthy animals. What concerns me is when people seem to be under the impression that inbreeding is never bad. I think that understanding what inbreeding depression is, what causes it, and how it works is beneficial for any animal breeder.

---

The whole point myself and others have been trying to make is that inbreeding, no matter how many generations, is not bad. Improper selection is bad.

Sent from my SGH-T599N using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krynn

The mechanism is the same across the animal kingdom, and you can find many examples in many different species (including snakes).

Dont get me wrong, I am not of the opinion that all inbreeding is bad. Yes line breeding can be an effective way to make healthy animals. What concerns me is when people seem to be under the impression that inbreeding is never bad. I think that understanding what inbreeding depression is, what causes it, and how it works is beneficial for any animal breeder.

---

I find more often people demonize inbreeding and do it pretty blindly also, especially when putting a generation number that is "ok". I am not referring to Pythonfriend, they explain their logic, while I might not agree with it, they are at least not doing it blindly. Many other I have talked to though, seem to have this magic ok number of generations then SHTF.

The same general concept (high homozygosity) that causes inbreeding depression can also make a stronger animal. I think both extremes should be talked about in the same conversation. I think the key is being selective. I mean in all honesty, why treat any pairing any different, if there are problems, stop them, why does the relationship matter? I see no reason to think after 3 generation all of a sudden defects happen out of nowhere and shouldn't breed after that magic number. It can be tough because we are always introducing new morphs, but be selective about your pairings when you can.

for me, maybe my opposition to continued inbreeding has a lot to do with what i know from other species, and there also is a sense of aesthetics involved.

in nature these pythons evolved over millions of years, and while other species are struggling there still are millions of ball pythons in the wild. their official conservation status is LC, the lowest, it stands for "least concern". and all ball python breeding is still closely connected to that gene pool, even a high-end 5 gene combo still has a whole lot of normals from africa in the ancestry. the outbreeding and recombination and the continued imports keep that connection alive. i think this concept has aesthetic value and will also keep the species strong and resilient.

the issue i have with line-breeding is that you start with a founding population of breeding animals, and then you breed these to each other, homozygoity goes up, you lose the genetic diversity and you lose the connection to the natural gene pool. you may get benefits, like pastels that never ever brown out, or polygenetic traits. but the benefits based on homozygoity are fragile, in that they are lost when you breed it to any other BP. i see how this is going terribly wrong in other species, especially pedigree dog breeding. there is only one way to produce a dog that can be accepted as a cocker spaniel: the parents and grandparents must be accepted cocker spaniels. any outbreeding will mean the animal will not be listed, will be rejected at auctions and shows, and will be labeled "mutt". this is going on for a large number of dog breeds, all isolated. and the result is genetic fragility and an avalanche of serious health problems. i see this as a possible and quite logical consequence of line-breeding: once you get your polygenetic line-bred trait fixed, it seperates from the rest of the gene pool and goes its own ways.

i like how in BP breeding, everything is still connected to everything else, and there is an influx of genes from the wild population in africa. and i dont like how that is not the case for dogs and horses and rabbits and so many of the other animals we domesticated. let alone animals for food production like chicken, pig, cattle. the original horse went extinct and had to be recreated from different breeds, wolves almost went extinct, and i have no clue where to find the original wild ancestor of our modern chickens and cats. BPs, even the most fancy multi-gene combos, still have that connection to nature.

dont get me wrong, i still think that a high inbreeding coefficient will weaken the immune system and make the snake more fragile when it comes to health. i dont have evidence for this in ball pythons specifically, but when you consider all that is known about all sexually reproducing species, you get a picture. but there also are aesthetic reasons for why i like it the way it is. this may be very subjective, but i think it explains the opposition. there is a kind of beauty in the way things are, and i dont see it when i look at a pet bunny or pony or dog.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pythonfriend

for me, maybe my opposition to continued inbreeding has a lot to do with what i know from other species, and there also is a sense of aesthetics involved.

in nature these pythons evolved over millions of years, and while other species are struggling there still are millions of ball pythons in the wild. their official conservation status is LC, the lowest, it stands for "least concern". and all ball python breeding is still closely connected to that gene pool, even a high-end 5 gene combo still has a whole lot of normals from africa in the ancestry. the outbreeding and recombination and the continued imports keep that connection alive. i think this concept has aesthetic value and will also keep the species strong and resilient.

the issue i have with line-breeding is that you start with a founding population of breeding animals, and then you breed these to each other, homozygoity goes up, you lose the genetic diversity and you lose the connection to the natural gene pool. you may get benefits, like pastels that never ever brown out, or polygenetic traits. but the benefits based on homozygoity are fragile, in that they are lost when you breed it to any other BP. i see how this is going terribly wrong in other species, especially pedigree dog breeding. there is only one way to produce a dog that can be accepted as a cocker spaniel: the parents and grandparents must be accepted cocker spaniels. any outbreeding will mean the animal will not be listed, will be rejected at auctions and shows, and will be labeled "mutt". this is going on for a large number of dog breeds, all isolated. and the result is genetic fragility and an avalanche of serious health problems. i see this as a possible and quite logical consequence of line-breeding: once you get your polygenetic line-bred trait fixed, it seperates from the rest of the gene pool and goes its own ways.

i like how in BP breeding, everything is still connected to everything else, and there is an influx of genes from the wild population in africa. and i dont like how that is not the case for dogs and horses and rabbits and so many of the other animals we domesticated. let alone animals for food production like chicken, pig, cattle. the original horse went extinct and had to be recreated from different breeds, wolves almost went extinct, and i have no clue where to find the original wild ancestor of our modern chickens and cats. BPs, even the most fancy multi-gene combos, still have that connection to nature.

dont get me wrong, i still think that a high inbreeding coefficient will weaken the immune system and make the snake more fragile when it comes to health. i dont have evidence for this in ball pythons specifically, but when you consider all that is known about all sexually reproducing species, you get a picture. but there also are aesthetic reasons for why i like it the way it is. this may be very subjective, but i think it explains the opposition. there is a kind of beauty in the way things are, and i dont see it when i look at a pet bunny or pony or dog.

---

I do see your point and the logic behind it. Everything you said is very well thought out and put together. But I must disagree still. The main reason for this is due to the simple fact that with proper selection of animals there are no issues with inbreeding/line breeding BPs. The exact same can and should be said for outcrossing.

If you look more at recessive genes and combos of them you will see more and more inbreeding. Let's use an existing combo. Ralphs first lav pied. That was first gen inbreeding to produce, at least the second gen were also inbred. With this we are only looking at a dbl recessive. Taking it a step further for a triple recessive would have an extreme amount of inbreeding because of the odds. Let's say a lav pied clown. If you hit a male you are going to breed that back to the mother asap to get another and hope for a female. Once you have the female you will breed them together to only produce that triple recessive combo to get finances moving with the project. After that you may outcross or you may keep producing more and more through inbreeding. Odds are both will be done to stack more on top and keep production up on them. With this example if you choose healthy animals from healthy stock you decrease the chance of issues down the line. It is all about selecting the healthiest animals to use in the project. The same goes for any breeding attempts. Healthy starting stock leads to healthy offspring. Proper documentation of each animal is needed to assure healthy offspring.

I am not saying as a blanket statement inbreeding is good because that is not true. I am only saying that it is not bad with proper selection of the stock used for each step if the way.

Sent from my SGH-T599N using Tapatalk

Just to cause this to resurface, Line breeding (or inbreeding) Cinnamon and Caramel are what causes the deformities of kinks. Just thought I'd throw that out there. But I will say that people are noticing what inbreeding is causing problems and are avoiding it. I can take two different "lines" of cinnamon and make supper cinnies with zero defects, breed them back to the parents.. well it has been my experience and from what I have gathered from others, whatever alleles are attached to the cinnamon phenotype are causing genetic kinks, separate from incubation issues. But this only shows when the Cinnamon genotype from a parent connect to the Cinnamon genotype of an offspring. Cinnamon to unrelated (atleast 3 generations separation) Cinnamon = Healthy clutch.

With that said, I am really tired of reptiles genes being compared to mammals.. Mammals developed and thrived because of a main factor, warm blood made migration possible. This is why we are all over the planet and most reptiles are concentrated at the equator. Mammals evolved to move around and in doing such our genome was spread and out genetic flaws were concealed through diversity. Reptiles however survived by conserving energy, not migrating (for the most part), and doing something us mammals suck at, letting nature take its course. 99.9% of all the species that ever existed on this planet are extinct. Every subsequent generation has found a way at surviving better than the last, low and behold that has lead to mammals being everywhere.


The weakness of reptiles is also their biggest reason for being so genetically pure. They die when pairings produce weak offspring. Mammals for the most part encourage and take on the weak and help them in a pack mentality, but do allow them the chance of spreading their bad genetics. Reptiles, for the most part, do not. The weak die in the egg, die after, or just die in general. Because they are so localized the parents will eventually die without viable offspring to carry on the genetics, and the ones that do survive either don't have that genetic flaw or have another trait that allows them to overcome it.

But just as the docile wolf has become father of all dogs, domestication of pythons has led to what we have today. Hate it or love it, you apparently are interested in it since this is a ball python forum.. Just saying. =)