Big News Coming Tomorrow!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kodieh

You were making some intelligent head way until you equated the problems laying and forming eggs to a morph.

Oh, yeah, I just picked up a super hypo, enchi, black pastel, cantlayeggs female.

Now, had you said "does stacking more genes on spiders remove the wobble?" I would agree entirely with you. However, you didn't.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

---

Why couldn't there be an issue related to the mutation of genes that make a desert what it is that causes problems with forming or laying eggs?? In theory it could be just like the spider, except the mutations don't affect the central nervous system they affect the reproductive system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eatgoodfood

Why couldn't there be an issue related to the mutation of genes that make a desert what it is that causes problems with forming or laying eggs?? In theory it could be just like the spider, except the mutations don't affect the central nervous system they affect the reproductive system.

---

You're furthering my argument. For spiders, and desert females, it is a defect associated with the morph; it is not a morph itself.

Apples to oranges, is what you're doing.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kodieh

You're furthering my argument. For spiders, and desert females, it is a defect associated with the morph; it is not a morph itself.

Apples to oranges, is what you're doing.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

---

Im not so sure, my genetics knowledge is limited so asplundii could probably better explain it?! but how do we know that its a defect associated with the morph, as in, a mutated gene or, morph, causes an affect on something else, or is it the a mutated gene itself that is the issue, as in the morph itself is the issue. But I suppose that might be what you were getting at with apples and oranges, semantics maybe. As in are we defining a morph purely by what we see or are we defining it by the one or more mutated genes it carries?

I really do not know if I made any sense there...

I'm just saying that equating the inability to form or lay eggs to a morph such as hypo or anything else is not something you can do. It is not a morph, but a defect associated with a morph.

It's just not sound logic.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kodieh

I'm just saying that equating the inability to form or lay eggs to a morph such as hypo or anything else is not something you can do. It is not a morph, but a defect associated with a morph.

It's just not sound logic.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

---

On a scientific and genetic level it is actually possible. You are making the assumption that the protein chain that effects the pattern of a "morph" will never have an effect on any other functions of the animal's development. Just because a genetic mutation effects the pattern or color of an animal does not automatically mean it stops there. It could also effect the animal on a neurological level or in a multitude of other ways. Just because it isn't always the case, doesn't mean it is never the case. That being said, it is possible that a visual morph can also carry a secondary issue, and the expression or severity of that issue may vary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TJ_Burton

On a scientific and genetic level it is actually possible. You are making the assumption that the protein chain that effects the pattern of a "morph" will never have an effect on any other functions of the animal's development. Just because a genetic mutation effects the pattern or color of an animal does not automatically mean it stops there. It could also effect the animal on a neurological level or in a multitude of other ways. Just because it isn't always the case, doesn't mean it is never the case. That being said, it is possible that a visual morph can also carry a secondary issue, and the expression or severity of that issue may vary.

---

Thats a way better formulated way of saying what I was trying to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TJ_Burton

On a scientific and genetic level it is actually possible. You are making the assumption that the protein chain that effects the pattern of a "morph" will never have an effect on any other functions of the animal's development. Just because a genetic mutation effects the pattern or color of an animal does not automatically mean it stops there. It could also effect the animal on a neurological level or in a multitude of other ways. Just because it isn't always the case, doesn't mean it is never the case. That being said, it is possible that a visual morph can also carry a secondary issue, and the expression or severity of that issue may vary.

---

Doesn't that also imply that you could somehow create an animal that is not desert at all, or spider at all, and have the issues those two have?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike41793

Who'd you buy that female from?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike41793

I'll ask again, where was the desert that Family Reptiles has, purchased from?

---

Mine is Stan's line.http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/s...aughing021.gif

If I can get my head out of my &ss, I'll post a pic of mine for comparison. LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kodieh

Doesn't that also imply that you could somehow create an animal that is not desert at all, or spider at all, and have the issues those two have?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

---

I don't see why not; it would just be less likely that they would surface so rapidly in captivity because we tend to only exploit traits that change the appearance of an animal visually. Any negative traits that are tied into a visual mutation would be discovered a lot faster.

Think about traits like scaleless where it is more than the pattern, but also the physiology of the snake that is changing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TJ_Burton

I don't see why not; it would just be less likely that they would surface so rapidly in captivity because we tend to only exploit traits that change the appearance of an animal visually.
Think about traits like scaleless where it is more than the pattern, but also the physiology of the snake that is changing.

---

There in lies my query though, we don't exploit traits that arent visually appealing. Meaning that these problems these morphs have are defecs associated with morphological defects, and not likely to be stand alone. They're tied, is what I'm getting at.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 4 Beta