New "Dr K Exotic Vet" show

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spoons

And then you go to Petco seeing boas that will get to 20 feet being sold in a little tank, the only indication of their size

---

Just an off-topic correction, but Boa constrictors do not get that big, ever. There's even Burmese pythons that will never be that big. Just throwing this out there. :gj:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pythonminion

Just an off-topic correction, but Boa constrictors do not get that big, ever. There's even Burmese pythons that will never be that big. Just throwing this out there. :gj:

---

I know, exaggeration on my part. doesn't come well through text. :) I meant it in the same way that people react when they hear something like the kind of dog I have (English Mastiff) - "How do you feed that? They get to be like 500 pounds!" :D

My bad!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MelissaS

The only acceptable definition is a selectively bred animal with a genetic difference that better suits a human use, which I assume is what your definition means for the most part.

If the animal has a genetic difference but does not suit the purpose better than the wild starting point, it isn't domesticated in my opinion. Ball pythons for instance look different, particularly when they are morphs, but I think they are the same animals found in the wild. The key difference is the environment they are raised in. What many people don't consider is that animals are drastically different based on whether or not they are socialized with humans. Even domesticated animals can return to the wild. Here's something else to consider, domesticated dogs are often neutered and spayed, so we remove a chunk of their natural drive. Unneutered dogs are known to be roamers. Non-castrated camels are dangerous during the rutting season.
I theorized that many zoo animals have issues with pacing for being intact, and their sexual hormones are on fire. When an animal is fixed also plays a part. My vet told me if I didn't neuter my spotted genet early it might not make a difference if I do it later. I ended up not neutering him and thankfully he doesn't spray but he has extreme energy levels.

With my narrowed down definition I was finally able to understand which animals are 'domesticated' and which aren't. Cockatiels, parakeets, hamsters, gerbils, snakes, aren't.

---

I agree. Simple genetics isn't enough, because you have genetic variation in wild populations, as well as captive populations. For example - among birds and reptiles you have numerous subspecies, and one way subspecies are determined is by genetics as well as geographic isolation. When enough genetic, morphological, and geographical isolation exists, then a subspecies may be graduated to full species level. Seems every year there are taxonomic revisions being made, and more so now with more emphasis being placed on genetic analysis.

When you look at captive populations, "domestic" animals, you also see these differences. Arabian horses, for example, come in different "lines", which each have their own genetic differences that help create some (often minor) morphological differences. These different bloodlines are also often used in different sports or purposes, although you can still mix and match. Same thing happens in dogs ("working" lines versus "show" lines, though some integration between the two may occur), and other species I'm sure. I've recently read a few complaints on different forums from chicken people complaining about the poultry shows "ruining" different chicken breeds, and that what you see today are no longer recognizable for what they once were (kind of the same arguments I hear about dog shows). These differences in appearance are due to genetic differences, and may or may not serve a purpose, other than being more asthetically pleasing to the human keeping and breeding that animal.

And hormones DEFINITELY play a HUGE role in an animal's behavior. A good stallion makes a better gelding, because the hormones running through a stallion's body can make him unpredictable and sometimes aggressive. Sure, it isn't true for every single individual, but it is true for enough of them that it is a huge consideration. I used to work at a horse ranch, and there was a HUGE difference between the stallions, geldings, and mares. Each of them had their own individual quirks, but the intact animals were definitely different from the gelded animals. I've never kept intact dogs to make a comparison there, but I have goats. Although I don't have a whether right now, I do have an intact buck (and intact does), and he is currently in rut. Those hormones don't make him aggressive toward us, but he is definitely more "high" (for lack of a better word) than my pregnant doe (and of course pregnancy hormones create a whole different animal!). Previously we were letting him and the doe roam the quarter acre horse yard, until we found out he was ramming and breaking the fence. There are no animals on the other side of the fence, and even with the ability to leave the yard he stayed in, so his intent was not escape and was not challenging someone on the other side. He's got room to roam, he's got another goat to run with, as well as horses (and he does rear up and bluff with the horses, of course they don't "play" the same way), so really the only thing that makes sense is the pent up energy from all those rutty hormones surging through his body. He unfortunately chooses to take it out on the fence instead of the toys, sheds, and other objects he has to play with. I'm sure if he had another buck he'd be fighting with that buck instead! These are innate behaviors that are unlikely to be altered through selective breeding, unless you select for an entirely different animal. These hormonal behaviors (peeing on himself, ramming objects or other animals, basically showing off how virile he is) are important for sexual selection. Goat breeders have reported that when they prevent these behaviors by keeping the male clean and shaving him (so he no longer has long hair to collect urine), females are less receptive. So in order to selectively breed against those behaviors, we would also have to selectively breed the females to be attracted to less masculine behaviors, or basically create a whole new sexuality in goats. That may not even be possible. These are "domesticated" animals who still display very wild behaviors, despite their domesticated temperaments.

Quote:

---

Simple genetics isn't enough, because you have genetic variation in wild populations, as well as captive populations. For example - among birds and reptiles you have numerous subspecies, and one way subspecies are determined is by genetics as well as geographic isolation. When enough genetic, morphological, and geographical isolation exists, then a subspecies may be graduated to full species level. Seems every year there are taxonomic revisions being made, and more so now with more emphasis being placed on genetic analysis.

---

This is the one thing I don't understand that well, maybe I shouldn't have skipped taking genetics. I'm not sure how much 'percentage of genetics' it takes for an animal to be considered a sub-species, species, ect. All I know is that any selectively bred animal that is more suitable for the human use and a genetic shift accounts for this change could be considered domesticated. I'm not sure if that should include color variations though. I don't considered ball python morphs domesticated. Thanks for the useful information about your livestock, I know very little about them and just recently learned about the rutting season thing from a story about a camel that killed its owner recently. Also I just learned that cows are de-horned to make them less dangerous on the Dr. Pol TV show. How far does that domestication definition go if animals are mutilated to be better suited for human use? I could de-claw and de-fang a tiger (cruel obviously) and that would make it a lot safer!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MelissaS

This is the one thing I don't understand that well, maybe I shouldn't have skipped taking genetics. I'm not sure how much 'percentage of genetics' it takes for an animal to be considered a sub-species, species, ect. All I know is that any selectively bred animal that is more suitable for the human use and a genetic shift accounts for this change could be considered domesticated. I'm not sure if that should include color variations though. I don't considered ball python morphs domesticated. Thanks for the useful information about your livestock, I know very little about them and just recently learned about the rutting season thing from a story about a camel that killed its owner recently. Also I just learned that cows are de-horned to make them less dangerous on the Dr. Pol TV show. How far does that domestication definition go if animals are mutilated to be better suited for human use? I could de-claw and de-fang a tiger (cruel obviously) and that would make it a lot safer!

---

I don't think there's a specific percentage of genetic differences that's looked for, but rather a combination of what genetic differences, isolation, etc. Color morphs definitely are NOT a good measure of domestication. Morphs can occur in the wild too. There are always going to be "odd balls" that pop up now and again: leucistic, albino, pied, etc. I've seen some of those variations in birds too (when I was an assistant checking bird traps, I found a leucistic version of a bird that is normally black and brown for males or all brown for females, someone else found a pied version of that same species, and for the endangered bird I study I've seen ones with isolated white patches). Some species have more variations than others, and sometimes those variations are not even genetically determined (some red coloration in birds). Rosy boas are known to have MANY different locality morphs, and those are naturally occurring in the wild without artificial selection.

And mutilating animals to make them more manageable in captivity is definitely a good point. How domesticated is the animal really if it is going to try to kill you?

I forgot to put this in one of my previous replies...

But technically speaking MOST of our captive pets are actually "exotic", when you go by the biological definition which means something "alien" or not native to the area. All dogs, cats, livestock, rabbits, rats, mice, many reptiles, many fish, and most (all?) captive birds would be considered "exotic" under that definition. Being a biologist I really default to that definition. "Exotic" is not the opposite of "domestic", something can be both "domestic" and "exotic". Likewise a "native" species is not necessarily "domestic", but a "native" species can never be "exotic".

Quote:

---

I don't think there's a specific percentage of genetic differences that's looked for, but rather a combination of what genetic differences, isolation, etc. Color morphs definitely are NOT a good measure of domestication

---

The reason I was thinking about that is because of animals like this:

http://thefeaturedcreature.thefeatur...py-470x375.jpg

I wondered what the genetic difference is and if the behavior is any different aside from how they look. It does suit the human use in that humans want things to look weird and showy.

Ha, almost no one seems to go by the actual definition of exotic. Most use it as a word that means 'unusual' in the pet trade. That's why I hear reptile people say "I know this isn't that exotic" when posting reptile photos on exotic mammal groups. I think the only domesticated animal native to the U.S./N.America would be turkeys and ducks. Even more reason why it is just irrefutably invalid to say 'exotic pets make bad pets' or 'exotic pets are dangerous'. The word is meaningless! You might as well say 'animals are dangerous'.