Derma balls

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick Long

So scaleless corns and rats are wrong too?????

---

In my eyes, yes.

Although I think it is unique and even has a certain coolness factor to it, one must wonder what inherent genetic problems it posseses

10 years from now....The DERMA AXANTHIC PIEBALD! Kidding....I wonder if you could see through the skin. With white skin and no scales....???:weirdface

That guy doesn't look like 700 grams to me...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardedragon

I do not even think they should try to prove it out. No heat pits? No protective scales that also do other things? It just sounds like humans being greedy to me, and not thinking of the snake:colbert: I'm not saying that you all agree with it, but i would not support it.

---

Its like breeding german shepherds for bad hips. it may look nice but that animal has a serious problem.

I can see how having no scales may make the animal more prone to scratches, but apart from that, in a captive environment...I can't see it as seriously disadvantaged. A lot depends on whether whatever caused that mutation has any other effects (the snake might be sterile--future manifestations might lack important scales such as eye caps, etc).

But the snake does have eye caps, and it eats, grows, and presumeably behaves normally. It is purportedly healthy. It doesn't even have the disadvantage that hairless mammals have, because being a reptile, it's ectothermic. While the scales provide protection from the environment, it's not as if the animal has no skin--we get by with just skin, and no fur or scales. Perhaps its skin is thin, but if it's not habitually getting scratched or cut, then it's not coming to any harm from its peculiar condition.

I've seen people saying that it has no heat pits, but it was obvious to me the first time I laid eyes on it that it does--the heat pits are shaped by the lip scales, but underneath those scales is sensitive skin--and that's what you see, just the skin, without the scales that would give the pits their shape. They still work just fine.
Obviously, as the animal has no problems eating.

All morphs are genetic mutations, and many of the carry with them potential problems, or sensitivities, that a normal animal would not have. White ball pythons would sunburn--but in captivity, they almost never see the sun. The eyesight of albinos is poor, and they may go blind if exposed to bright light or UV--but in captivity, that is unlikely to happen, and it's unlikely to prove to be a serious handicap if it does.
The derma ball would be scratched and develop infections as a result, in the wild--but it isn't in the wild, and scratches can be easily treated with a topical antibiotic ointment, and prevented by keeping it on newspaper in a cage with no sharp edges.

Apart from its bizarre appearance, what is the REAL problem with it? Where do you draw the line between a 'morph' and a deformity? If someone bred ball pythons that grew to 8 feet, which category would they be in? What if they never exceeded 3 feet? What about the oddly shaped faces of the cinnamon line? Is that a deformity, or just an interesting morph characteristic? (It doesn't seem to do the animal any harm).

I think there is a good chance that the derma ball suffers no handicap from its condition in the environment it lives in--captivity. If it's not handicapped, why consider that to be a deformity?

I've seen people talk about how many other health problems it might have--what if it has none? What if all derma balls will hatch out looking just like that one--partially scaled, but with eyecaps and all the necessary body parts, and in otherwise good health? Would opinions change?

i don't see anyone freaking about the hairless rats and cats and whatever else that's being bred. It's essentially the same thing - it's lacking the protective outer layer that evolved due to the environmental pressures influencing selection for the past few million years.

Since that environment ... *doesn't exist* in our racks and aquariums - i guess i'd say that so long as it lives an otherwise normal life, selecting for that gene is no worse than selecting for any other recessive gene.

I just skimmed through the thread, which I had read before, and I dont think amyone mentioned this yet. What if this is some sort of evolution happening right before our eyes. People would be quick to dismiss it, but we really never know.

Just like the tasmanian devil, they were dying off with some sort of cancer at an alarming rate, and therefore they evolved and started breeding at a younger age. I believe they were breeding at 3 to 4 years before and now they are breeding succesfully at a year or less. This ladies and gentleman is evolution.

:taz::snake:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nchapa

I just skimmed through the thread, which I had read before, and I dont think amyone mentioned this yet. What if this is some sort of evolution happening right before our eyes. People would be quick to dismiss it, but we really never know.

Just like the tasmanian devil, they were dying off with some sort of cancer at an alarming rate, and therefore they evolved and started breeding at a younger age. I believe they were breeding at 3 to 4 years before and now they are breeding succesfully at a year or less. This ladies and gentleman is evolution.

:taz::snake:

---

This is one snake.... that lost its scale to no beneficial benefits and was just a freak of nature. Evolution I think not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morphie

i don't see anyone freaking about the hairless rats and cats and whatever else that's being bred. It's essentially the same thing - it's lacking the protective outer layer that evolved due to the environmental pressures influencing selection for the past few million years.

Since that environment ... *doesn't exist* in our racks and aquariums - i guess i'd say that so long as it lives an otherwise normal life, selecting for that gene is no worse than selecting for any other recessive gene.

---

Hairless rats and cats are mammals