Do you avoid morphs with known genetic flaws?

Let me start this by saying that my intention is NOT to open up a giant, mud-slinging debate with this thread. It is my sincere hope that we can all discuss this topic in a calm and non-judgmental fashion. I apologize in advance if this thread turns into a poop-show, and I truly hope that it doesn't. However, I've been wresting with some of these issues a lot lately and I'm curious to get the opinions of others on them.

I'm trying this out primarily in the form of a poll -- never made one before but I think it's the best way to survey this. I'd also be very interested in hear peoples' thoughts on this topic directly, though please please please try to remain civil :bow: However, the poll is there mainly because I'm curious to get a feel for the overall proportion of people who do avoid working with the mutations in question. It generally seems like most people work with and accept these morphs, but I'm curious if there's a bit more of a "silent majority/minority" that don't than it appears on the surface.

My primary question is: Do you avoid morphs with known genetic flaws, and if so, which ones? Do you avoid spiders because they have neurologic disease, or do you work with them anyway? Do you avoid caramels because they may produce kinked offspring? Homozygotes with flaws? (Ex; bug-eyed super lessers or kinked/duckbilled super cinnamons?)

If you avoid one morph, but not another, what is the basis of that decision?

If a new morph is produced that is known or suspected to have a given non-lethal flaw, do you believe it should continue to be propagated (either to attempt to breed out the flaw, or because the flaw is perceived as acceptable), or should it be allowed to "go extinct?"

Finally, if you own and work with a mutation with a known flaw, did you know about the flaw before you bought that animal, or did you find out afterward?

Thanks in advance everyone.

No, I don't.

I chose to skip working with caramels, in part because we now have ultramels that don't kink. I'm saving up for an ultramel.

The issue with kinking is that it can be fatal or very debilitating in a physical fashion (interfering with growth and passage of food through the digestive tract). Severely kinked hatchlings would have to be euthanized. I also would not intentionally produce a Pearl.

Spider and woma wobbles, duckbilling, or even bug eyes, really don't do any harm to the animal. I've heard of the occasional spider that was so severe it was dysfunctional, but that's very rare, and from what I understand, those animals could still eat with minor help. They weren't in physical discomfort.

So, I have no issues working with spiders, womas, cinnies, or lessers, or their supers.

Until we do some genetics studies on these morphs, there's no way of knowing whether selective breeding can reduce the severity of these linked flaws. It's possible that it simply can't. The question is, are these flaws so bad that we need to eliminate them? At the moment, the majority opinion seems to be that they are not.

There are plenty of pets out there bred to have flaws that people think are desirable--the huge head and smashed face of a bulldog, the chondrodysplasia of Dexter cows and Dachshund dogs, the tailless gene in Manx cats, which is fatal in its 'super' form, fainting goats...the list goes on.
If the animal isn't suffering due to it, and humans find it desirable, then the reality is, it is not a flaw in a pet species. It may be a flaw in a wild animal, but not in a pet.

I bought my spider and cinnamon knowing full well that there were perceived flaws associated with them. I was not aware of the super-lesser bug-eyes until I started working with lessers, but it doesn't give me cause for concern.
I was unaware of the woma wobble issue, because when I got my first womas, the usual opinion was that womas didn't have a wobble issue. I was certainly a bit bummed to discover that wasn't true, but now I've come to terms with it. (It's less common in incidence and severity than the spider wobble, but still prevalent).
Doesn't appear to distress them at all, and I've never heard of a 'trainwreck' woma the way I have spiders, so, no problems with it now.

I think if we ever discover a mutation that causes half the hatchlings to be born inside out, or something, then there will definitely be a call to eliminate that gene, but most of the morphs that have flaws now don't have anything quite that serious going on. Pearls can be avoided through careful breeding.

I personally plan to avoid them myself, until I know for sure I can find a line with fewer or hopefully no issues. I am planning to go the pricy route and pick up ultramels and such. That's just me though! :D There is already the chance of flaws showing up just from genetics and simply funky eggs.... Add to that extra chance of failure?? I dunno.. Just not for me! :P

I try to stay away from animals with known flaws, some of my favorite morphs are those with the caramel gene yet I have none in my collection for that very reason. I will not get into the desert project until it is proven that females can breed. I will also stay away from the sable and any other gene that proves lethal. I even try to stay away from the spider gene all though I don't consider the wobble as bad as the other mentioned problems. As far as duck bills and bug eyes go, they don't seem to be that common, if I ever produced once I think I would offer it as a pet and wouldn't repeat the pairing.

Yeah, I still haven't heard any news that has changed my view on deserts either. I love them though, so I'm constantly hoping that they will start to prove out(and not just one or two successful clutches out of dozens, at least a 51% majority hatching out in the future)

Since there are SO many females around, maybe there will finally be good news. Til then, not interested! Except as a pet. They ARE lovely.

Yes, I have no interest in working with spiders or caramels because of wobbling and kinking. As of right now those are the only morphs I don't want in my collection because of known issues.

There are so many nice Morphs, I see no reason to work with or own any of negative gene morphs.
I won't touch any of em.

I'm not avoiding any of these genes.

While I would work with the genes, I would be even more super picky with what animals I choose to work with (and I plan to only save up for the most amazing representatives of morphs I can find when I finally get to a place where I can own snakes).

While the animals DO have a tendency to show those defects, I feel that by being extraordinarily picky and getting only the best, healthiest animals you can find to work with, you can at least severely reduce your chances of producing unhealthy hatchlings.

Again, it wouldn't stop me from working with the genes, I would just be extra super picky over which animals I get.

No pearls, though. That's a heartbreak waiting to happen.

I most likely will not work with caramels because we have ultramels. If we did not have ultramels, I might work with caramels. Something that looks just as cool, but no issues.... it's hard to say no, it's just from a pure breeding perspective and the direction I personally see the market going. I believe the trend I see is because of the kinking issue.

I have no issues with spiders at all, I already work with them. I'm shooting for lesser x lesser BEL this year again (missed last year). The duck billing has no effects on why I'm not working with cinnies. I would also gladly work with the desert project.

Every morph is a defect and every morph can have underlying issues we can't identify right away. I have no doubts we can successfully give a great quality of life to any of the morphs we have in captivity.

Does anybody have pics of the pearl and what kind of defect do they have

We produced 3 perfect lesser/butter BEL's this past season, we are shooting for super black pastels this season, have made numerous spider combos.
We are not working with any caramels since we already have albino and clown and hypo recessive traits going on :snake:

Thanks to everyone that replied and voted! I'm really curious to see how this poll winds up, but I can definitely already see where it's heading.

I find it really fascinating that significantly more people are turned off by the potential for kinking in caramels than the (almost inevitable) neuro issues in spiders. I do have one male caramel and although caramel projects aren't a huge part of my collection by any means, I probably will keep forging ahead with them (mainly the caramel mojave stuff).

I guess maybe I'm still hopeful that selective breeding may eliminate or decrease the incidence of kinking -- unlike the spider neuro issues, it isn't a guarantee out of a caramel breeding, though obviously it is a risk. I don't know what percentage of caramels actually come out kinked; I would be curious to hear that statistic.

I started the poll because I'm seriously wrestling with whether to nix my spider projects. My female spider started out as a perfect baby, but as she's aged she's become more and more neurologic. She still eats like a champ and oddly, stops spinning or spazzing if I pick her up. She also has a perfect righting reflex. It's a very weird defect, but it just kind of bothers me to watch her ... And I feel as though if it bothers me that much, I shouldn't breed her (or my two spider combo males).

Then again, when I pick any of them up to interact with, they look and act like totally normal, healthy snakes. It's just that sometimes ... They spin. :(

I forgot to mention the pearl and regular woma wobble. (For those that don't know, the homozygous hidden gene woma, AKA pearl, is a pale ball python that apparently becomes severely neurologic shortly after hatching, fails to eat, and almost invariably dies.) I also forgot to add the sable; I'll see if I can put that in. To my knowledge, some sable combos also have issues (sable x spider is said to be lethal -- they are born, then fail and die -- and I think sable x champagne is also neurologic).

Nevermind -- I can't edit the poll. Apologies to those who abstain from sables, womas, deserts and anything else I forgot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mainbutter

Yes, I have no interest in working with spiders or caramels because of wobbling and kinking. As of right now those are the only morphs I don't want in my collection because of known issues.

---

x2
i also included super cinny but am less worried about them as this seems to be fairly rare. but when there is black pastel to use why take the chance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ball python 22

Does anybody have pics of the pearl and what kind of defect do they have

---

all the pearls (super hg woma) that i am aware of that have been produced have the spider wobble x10. they just flip and spin. i don't believe Kevin has been able to even keep any alive but i could be wrong on that one.

I think the reason people have no fear of working with spiders is they are one of the most common morphs out there, yet you never really hear of a spider struggling to eat or breed. They even tend to be people's strongest thriving snakes despite the wobble 'problem'

Now, I haven't seen a wobble that actually affected the spider to the point where it had trouble living(except in a case where the snake already had other disabilities like severe kinking or even bad care causing more neurological issues), but then with caramels we here all too often about babies who are so severely kinked they can't eat or..well, live. So that scares people.

There are a lot of lethal combos out there, so we do have to watch out for that. Whatever your choices, whether you work with these animals or not--make sure you are informed. If your plan were to revolve around the pearl and you spent all your time and money preparing for that..well, woops. Sorry, that sucks. :(

Now, sable/spider is fatal. That doesn't make me scared of spiders or sables. Of course I would never breed them! Fatal combos are different to me than genes that cause health problems just from the get go. And kinks scare me.

If in the future people produce a kink free line of caramel(which I honestly consider the ultramel to be, despite it looking a little different) then that's awesome. I personally am not brave enough to go in and work with these genes when there are other options available. For those that are willing to deal with the risk of having to cull sick babies, deal with infertile clutches and risks to their females, and are knowledgable to do this for the betterment of that morph--more power to them.

I am not opposed to working with any of these genes.

Lessers have bug-eyes? I thought that was also super cinnies/super black pastels?

I have been avoiding caramels and spiders, though I'd LOVE to work with caramels. But I'm currently up to my neck in black pastels.

Yes, just my personal choice

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loonunit

Lessers have bug-eyes? I thought that was also super cinnies/super black pastels?

I have been avoiding caramels and spiders, though I'd LOVE to work with caramels. But I'm currently up to my neck in black pastels.

---

Not Lessers themselves. Just super lessers/BELs

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk

I'm a strong believer in selective breeding, and with the success that spiders have as a morph vs the extreme cases, I really feel comfortable working with it in the future. As for the others? It wouldn't prevent me working with them if I were to add them to my plans. The known lethal combos (spider x sable) I'd simply avoid. If I really liked a certain combination and there were known healthy specimens I would be comfortable taking the risk.

Any time you breed the babies can be messed up. For years I have been breeding spider and spider combos, cinnys and cinny combos. Never had a genetic problem with any of the resulting babies.

That said, I have had plenty of problems with pastel, pinstripe, yellow belly and normal babies.

If you are super worried about making babies with issues, my advice to you is don't breed at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loonunit

But I'm currently up to my neck in black pastels.

---

Not to hijack the thread, but you could throw a male my way :D

Im working on getting a 1.1 caramel het OG right now. I do plan to do some trading to avoid line breeding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by heathers*bps

Not to hijack the thread, but you could throw a male my way :D

---

George is working as fast as he can! But any excess black pastels will be het for pied...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by satomi325

Not Lessers themselves. Just super lessers/BELs

---

Understood. I'd just always heard the bug-eyed thing associated with solid blacks, not solid whites.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loonunit

Understood. I'd just always heard the bug-eyed thing associated with solid blacks, not solid whites.

---

nope, no bug eye problems with cinnys or black pastels, just lesser/butter x lesser/butter. How ever in real life, I have yet to see a bug eye lesserxlesser, seen quite a few with no problems, always wondered how often it actually happens.

aren't all morphs some sort of genetic flaw if it is not a normal then it has a genetic flaw right

I have a really clean bee. She has slight wobble before she strikes, it doesn't bother me in the slightest.
My super lesser is perfect, as is my super cinny woma.
I did turn down a cheap 600g desert female. I wouldn't take the chance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Cavanaugh

Any time you breed the babies can be messed up. For years I have been breeding spider and spider combos, cinnys and cinny combos. Never had a genetic problem with any of the resulting babies.

That said, I have had plenty of problems with pastel, pinstripe, yellow belly and normal babies.

If you are super worried about making babies with issues, my advice to you is don't breed at all.

---

I meant to respond to this post, then got distracted by something shiny. :rolleyes:

I can see what you're driving at, though I think your logic is a little bit flawed. Yes, any pairing of one animal to another animal with the intention of making baby animals brings with it the risk that the baby animals will be in some way flawed, and may even need to be humanely euthanized. There are definitely environmental (non-genetic) factors that can lead to birth defects; it can't always be avoided. I am absolutely of a belief that if you aren't willing to cull, then breeding may not be for you, because if you hatch out, say, a ball python with its organs on the outside (which does happen on occasion), you're going to need to be willing to put that poor creature out of its misery ASAP and an unwillingness to do that would be inhumane.

That said, I think there's an important difference between the risk of defects inherent in any breeding, and the risk of defects in bloodlines of animals with known heritable defects. I am not trying to state that it's uniformly wrong to breed these animals. I can see the argument that I *think* you're trying to make; that since the incidence of severe impairment in these morphs is fairly low, and the overall incidence of birth defects in pythons is relatively high due to the stresses of incubation, the additional risk of breeding these mutations is negligible. I get that; I can see that argument.

However, I think that to imply that those who wish to minimize their chances of producing flawed offspring by avoiding mutations with known flaws should avoid breeding altogether is a bit excessive, and I think somewhat misses the point. I think what I'm getting at isn't whether or not people want to produce flawed offspring; obviously nobody does. I think my question is, are you okay with propagating a mutation that is known to harbor the potential for a given flaw -- even if you personally never produce a flawed baby.

Obviously that's a totally personal preference. I think that for many, it might help to know what the actual incidence of the disease in that morph was -- for example, will 1/10 spiders be a train wreck, or is it more like 1/10,000? For some, though, even 1/10,000 is too much of a risk, and I think that's to be respected as well.

Gah, that was pedantic. Apologies.

If it's 1/10,000, then the additional risk from having the spider mutation truly is negligible. There are some folks that are simply disturbed by the ataxia of spiders, as it reminds them of ataxia in humans, which is usually associated with something unpleasant.
On the other hand, waltzing mice have their fans. Some people would never dream of breeding waltzing mice, while others love them.

It all comes around to the definition of a 'defect'. Is a change in body shape desirable, or a 'defect'? Obviously, we don't demand conformity of shape in our other pets--check the difference in shape between a pug dog and a greyhound! So, is the duckbilling that occurs in cinnamons an actual issue, or just a neat alteration of form that is desirable? Do bug eyes in a super lesser actually cause any harm?

Is a spider's ataxia substantially worse than what's seen in fainting goats, or waltzing mice?

I think calling some of these traits 'genetic flaws' is loaded language--it's making an assumption from the outset, which not everyone will agree with. Not all of these things are necessarily flaws.

They are genetic mutations. All morphs are the result of genetic mutations being propagated. If they are not obviously detrimental to these animals as PETS, why call them flaws?

I abandoned my caramel albino project once the ultramels came along. It's too heartbreaking to hatch a severely deformed beautiful little caramel. It helps that I think ultramels are prettier.

My spiders, on the other hand, are among my favorites. All I've ever seen of a wobble is some spastic movements when it's feeding time. I've also noticed that they seem more active and inquisitive than average and have great appetites and grow well.

I'm rethinking some of my plans for my desert male because of the question about desert female reproductive ability. It's such a beautiful morph with such great combos that I won't stop working with it.

I've no plans to make super lessers or super cinnies, but I haven't avoided those morphs at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WingedWolfPsion

If it's 1/10,000, then the additional risk from having the spider mutation truly is negligible.

---

I agree with this (though I know that there are some who wouldn't even take that risk, which I think is also to be respected). I don't know what the actual number is, though -- and for me, it's important to find out.

Quote:

---

There are some folks that are simply disturbed by the ataxia of spiders, as it reminds them of ataxia in humans, which is usually associated with something unpleasant.
On the other hand, waltzing mice have their fans. Some people would never dream of breeding waltzing mice, while others love them.

It all comes around to the definition of a 'defect'. Is a change in body shape desirable, or a 'defect'? Obviously, we don't demand conformity of shape in our other pets--check the difference in shape between a pug dog and a greyhound! So, is the duckbilling that occurs in cinnamons an actual issue, or just a neat alteration of form that is desirable? Do bug eyes in a super lesser actually cause any harm?

Is a spider's ataxia substantially worse than what's seen in fainting goats, or waltzing mice?

I think calling some of these traits 'genetic flaws' is loaded language--it's making an assumption from the outset, which not everyone will agree with. Not all of these things are necessarily flaws.

---

I will agree that it's loaded, but I can't think of another term for it. You're absolutely right, though -- some people might like bug-eyed snakes.

All animal breeding is a very loaded topic, with a lot of contentious issues. I think it all ultimately often comes down to what is considered acceptable within the community of people that work with that animal -- but I think sometimes it is important to consider it from an outside perspective.

For example, there are some breeders of English bulldogs who will just take it as a given that the animal will need multiple surgeries (airway surgery, eye surgery) at a relatively young age. It's just a part of owning a bulldog. To them, it's "normal," and it's acceptable. In my mind that doesn't make it acceptable. I go to a school where the word "breeder" (and "exotic pet," FWIW) are considered dirty words by an awful lot of people, and I see an awful lot of judging going on every day, so I try very hard not to be judgmental. However, I just don't believe that deliberately and consciously breeding for a dog that you know will eventually need a surgery to survive past a couple years of age can ever be considered acceptable.

I'm not about to compare spiders to English bulldogs -- not by a long shot. And indeed, in my mind I really don't see much that's ethically unacceptable about breeding, say, a duck-billed super cinny or a bug-eyed lesser, provided those things don't affect the animal's health (which they really don't seem to from what I can see). I had been under the impression that they were undesirable largely because they are "deviants" from the normal physical conformation of snake, which seems to be overall undesirable to this community. Maybe that's changing, though. (Who knows, maybe in the future we'll even start to see selection for morphologic characteristics other than color ...)

And as for the spiders -- yes, I agree 100% -- it is very much like the myotonic goats. (I don't know too much about waltzing mice, though I can guess about it ...) I don't know that I am totally comfortable with the idea of selecting for an animal that falls down when it gets too excited, either. To be honest, since I've never met a myotonic goat (to my knowledge), I can't really comment on it, but I will say that I don't take it as a given that the breeding of myotonic goats is ethically acceptable.

Clearly the propagation of spider ball pythons is, by and large, accepted within our immediate ball python community. I can tell you, though, that when I mention it to other veterinary professionals (or non-ball python herp people), the reaction I get most often is, "Oh, so people don't breed those now that they know about it, right?" :rolleyes: Well ...

I am still running my male bumblebee through my females, FWIW ... Though I am debating making this my last year with the morph. I don't know.

Ironically, as far as the caramels -- I am still tentatively planning on going forward with them. For some reason, I have very little internal debate there -- even though my little poll is clearly indicating that on the whole, ball python people are much more concerned about the ethics of caramel breeding than spider balls (though I wonder -- how much is ethics and how much is economics? You can sell a spinny spider because it's commonly accepted, but you can't get rid of a kinked caramel ...) I think that for me, the path for that project is obvious -- one kinked baby and I nix the project. Over and done. For the spiders, my biggest worry is that I'll hold back a perfect, gorgeous three or four banger combo (or worse, sell one) that later in life turns into a spastic train wreck. :(

... That post was also stupid long, but more rambling than pedantic ...

And PS, HUGE thanks to everyone who has commented and voted -- this kind of a friendly debate is just what I was hoping for :)

Well, I think the reason more folks are concerned about the caramel kinking (including myself) is that it can be severe enough that the animal has to be euthanized, because it would be unable to move, and food could not pass through its digestive tract.

The spider mutation, on the other hand...well, I've never heard of a case, even with the train wrecks, where the animal was unable to survive. Nor do they appear to be distressed by their condition (we all know that stressed ball pythons will neither eat nor breed). If there are any cases like that, it would be impossible to know if the problem was purely the spider mutation, because developmental abnormalities in the egg can also produce neurologically impaired animals that don't thrive.

The other issues really appear to be purely cosmetic, and harmless--feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

The only one of those I somewhat avoid is the Caramel because of the kinking. Maybe some day I will get into them, but only if I could find some without defect in their immediate history. For now I'm skipping over them.

I have a caramel project but I think it's because of the potential genetic issues, lol.

When I bought my original 66% chance het male around 1999 I of course hadn't heard of the kinking issue or more recently the egg problem with homozygous caramel females. Took me forever to get eggs from him and forever again to get the three daughters up to breeding size (I'm a crappy feeder). I didn't even have a caramel gene male to try them with but then in 2010 a friend who had read my speculations that there might be an environmental variable behind how likely expression of the caramel kinking tendency is gave me a pair of 100% hets. So I'm trying the 100% het male to the three 33% chance het females and will eventually breed him to his 100% het sister. If anyone has any suggestions for anything I should do different with the gravid moms or the eggs just in case I hit on a caramel I'm all ears. If I eventually produce a caramel female then I'll have to decide what to do with her; probably keep the first one and experiment with ways to get good eggs from her. Hopefully someone else will come forward with a solution before then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlitherinSisters

The only one of those I somewhat avoid is the Caramel because of the kinking. Maybe some day I will get into them, but only if I could find some without defect in their immediate history. For now I'm skipping over them.

---

When I bought my caramel male, I viewed dozens of ads to find one that had the look I liked, then contacted only three people who had a male that was "pretty" enough for me with questions about their animals' history. Only one person even acknowledged my concerns about the kinking, and it was only after speaking to him on the phone about the issue that I bought my male.

In theory, the male I have is from a mix of bloodlines that includes an imported (unnamed) bloodline that the breeder was working with that had no past history of kinking. My plan is to breed him to a Malsin/Upscale line female (if I can find one), which, in my research seemed to have the least amount of kinking present (and be the prettiest IMO). If I get so much as one kinked animal, the project goes poof. So, we'll see ... I like the appearance of a good quality caramel a lot more than any ultramel (maybe selective breeding will help that a good bit, but for now I haven't yet seen an ultramel that at all "did it" for me), but if it does turn out that the kinking is a guarantee in any caramel bloodline, I am okay with letting the gene die.

For now, though, I'd still like to see if I can get a line going that is free of the defect (as some folks claim to have done) ... And like Randy, I'm pretty much just planning on holding back females to fiddle with technique :) They aren't 100% sterile -- just sub-fertile -- so it would be interesting to see if there are any variables that affect their fertility.

I voted caramel, I already have a ghost project in the making, and either a Genetic stripe or clown project next so no need for more reccesive. The kinking and fertility issues were the factor that made me look right past them when looking for a recc project.

I have seen a bug eyed supper lesser in person (won't name the breeder) and it was very disturbing. I was being given a tour of his facility and I saw the BEL tag , I opened the bin as I was asking and there it was. He didn't seem happy that I'd opened it and I excused myself shortly after. However I still plan to do a Butter x Lesser Bel, just from differant bloodlines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrBig

However I still plan to do a Butter x Lesser Bel, just from differant bloodlines.

---

Unfortunately I believe there is a user on here who did get bug-eyed babies out of a lesser x butter breeding. (That was actually one of the main things that convinced me that butter and lesser are the same thing ...) So it's not a guarantee, of course, but it is a possibility.

I don't believe it is due to inbreeding, and thus I'm not sure if outcrossing will get rid of it. I think that something about the blue-eyed leucistic trait itself causes various eye issues (wish I knew why, but I don't). Leucistic Texas rat snake are the most infamous example, but I think that the Lucy Burms may have some eye problems as well on occasion.

And honestly, this year I produced four lesser x mojave leucistics and out of four babies, three are perfect and one is indeed cross-eyed. Not bug-eyed, but cross-eyed. So maybe it is unavoidable.

I'm not going to breed caramels or spiders because of the issues. I'm going to replace the spider in combos with pinstripes partially because I like them better and partially because they don't wobble.

The whole "duckbill" thing seems to be asthetic only. I actually think it's cute, so I will be breeding super black pastels.

How often do the pop eyes appear in BELs, and do they also appear in super fires ( or any black eyed lucy), super mojos, and lesser/mojos?

I heard powerballs (super spotnose) wobble but grow out of it, but I can't find much info about that.

I didn't know deserts had any problems but I never really liked them anyway.

I have no problems about keeping spiders as pets but personally I wouldn't breed them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kittycatpenut

How often do the pop eyes appear in BELs, and do they also appear in super fires ( or any black eyed lucy), super mojos, and lesser/mojos?

I heard powerballs (super spotnose) wobble but grow out of it, but I can't find much info about that.

I didn't know deserts had any problems but I never really liked them anyway.

---

I don't know how often they appear in BELs. I don't believe that any BELs other than super lessers/butters have pop-eyes (though someone please correct me if I'm wrong), and I don't think that all super lessers have them. I don't know the true frequency. I did produce a cross-eyed lesser/mojave BEL (she was actually born normal, then became cross-eyed as she aged). Maybe that's a fluke, though, I don't know.

AFAIK no black eyed leucistic has eye problems. I suspect that the trait is probably associated more with the blue eyes than with leucism (it just happens that blue-eyed lucies are the only blue-eyed ball pythons we have so far, at least that I know about).

The problems (or potential problems) with deserts are still not totally confirmed, which is why I didn't include them in this poll. The rumor is that females can't produce, but the specifics of that are very hazy, and there are plenty of threads on that already ...

And yes, I gather that evidently powerballs also have some neurologic issues. So, too, can womas (same as spiders). I don't know about hidden-gene womas, which are a different morph, although I do know that that gene is almost always fatal in homozygous form (the pearl).

Also, reading a few threads on BLBC it sounds as though any combo of champagne, sable and spider all fail to thrive (ie, any combo of the above three). However, combos of sable, spider and champ with other morphs do fine.

Interesting stuff, really.

Poor pearls :( Are there any more morphs with potential genetic problems?

It is interesting that only blue eyed lucys have eye problems, maybe they're like the siamese cats of the bp world :rolleye2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kittycatpenut

Poor pearls :( Are there any more morphs with potential genetic problems?

It is interesting that only blue eyed lucys have eye problems, maybe they're like the siamese cats of the bp world :rolleye2:

---

... Actually, I wonder if it could be the same process ... I do have a blue-eyed (non-Siamese -- ragdoll cross) cat with slightly crossed eyes ...

I think I've covered everything I know about ... It used to be that pieds were said to be poor eaters, but I don't know how anyone could prove that (and my experience with them has been quite the opposite!) I've also read rumors that albino x albino breedings are more likely to produce deformed albinos, and though I'm not completely sure how or why that would be the case on a genetic level, I've seen it repeated (including, in some cases, with photographic proof) a few times ... :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maixx

There are so many nice Morphs, I see no reason to work with or own any of negative gene morphs.
I won't touch any of em.

---

That is the main reason I don't think it is good to breed defective morphs. There are literally hundreds of other single genes to pick from. Just think of the time when there was only normal ball pythons. There are still some species with only the wild-type, no morphs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Serpent_Nirvana

I guess maybe I'm still hopeful that selective breeding may eliminate or decrease the incidence of kinking -- unlike the spider neuro issues, it isn't a guarantee out of a caramel breeding, though obviously it is a risk. I don't know what percentage of caramels actually come out kinked; I would be curious to hear that statistic.

I started the poll because I'm seriously wrestling with whether to nix my spider projects. My female spider started out as a perfect baby, but as she's aged she's become more and more neurologic. She still eats like a champ and oddly, stops spinning or spazzing if I pick her up. She also has a perfect righting reflex. It's a very weird defect, but it just kind of bothers me to watch her ... And I feel as though if it bothers me that much, I shouldn't breed her (or my two spider combo males).

Then again, when I pick any of them up to interact with, they look and act like totally normal, healthy snakes. It's just that sometimes ... They spin. :(

---

This website says that all caramels have kinks, when x-rayed, no matter what the breeder claims.
Scroll down to caramel-
http://vmsherp.com/ViewPastProjects.htm

Also, reptiles are adapted to look like they are not dying, unless they are at the very close point to death. If a predator saw a dying snake (or spinning), it would probably try to catch it over a normal, completely healthy snake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Cavanaugh

Any time you breed the babies can be messed up. For years I have been breeding spider and spider combos, cinnys and cinny combos. Never had a genetic problem with any of the resulting babies.

That said, I have had plenty of problems with pastel, pinstripe, yellow belly and normal babies.

If you are super worried about making babies with issues, my advice to you is don't breed at all.

---

Of course there will always be a small percentage of deformed babies, even in wild populations. It's that the mutations are associated with the problems that make them more likely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joshj

aren't all morphs some sort of genetic flaw if it is not a normal then it has a genetic flaw right

---

Yes, the morphs are all genetic flaws, but the difference is that most ONLY affect color or pattern. The ones that have associated problems are the most debatable about breeding. Albinos, pinstripes, pastels, piebalds, and most other morphs are completely normal in every way, other than their pattern or color.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kev.K

I have a really clean bee. She has slight wobble before she strikes, it doesn't bother me in the slightest.

---

Of course not. If it bothered you, you probably wouldn't have spiders, since the mutation is not natural, and most people NOT into reptiles are actually the only ones that realize that. Someone above already said that about reptile vets.

Also, it doesn't matter if it bothers you, it's the snake that is living with it. Try shaking your head back and forth for a few minutes.:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WingedWolfPsion

If it's 1/10,000, then the additional risk from having the spider mutation truly is negligible. There are some folks that are simply disturbed by the ataxia of spiders, as it reminds them of ataxia in humans, which is usually associated with something unpleasant.
On the other hand, waltzing mice have their fans. Some people would never dream of breeding waltzing mice, while others love them.

It all comes around to the definition of a 'defect'. Is a change in body shape desirable, or a 'defect'? Obviously, we don't demand conformity of shape in our other pets--check the difference in shape between a pug dog and a greyhound! So, is the duckbilling that occurs in cinnamons an actual issue, or just a neat alteration of form that is desirable? Do bug eyes in a super lesser actually cause any harm?

Is a spider's ataxia substantially worse than what's seen in fainting goats, or waltzing mice?

I think calling some of these traits 'genetic flaws' is loaded language--it's making an assumption from the outset, which not everyone will agree with. Not all of these things are necessarily flaws.

They are genetic mutations. All morphs are the result of genetic mutations being propagated. If they are not obviously detrimental to these animals as PETS, why call them flaws?

---

They would be detrimental if the animals were put back into the wild.
Yes, I know that the morphs would probably all die if put into the wild. I think, like many other people, that messing with the color and pattern is enough. Once you get to the point of altering the brain function (spiders), or spinal issues (caramels), it can be said that you are ethically going too far.
I am also against breeding ANY animals with known or associated problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Serpent_Nirvana

I will agree that it's loaded, but I can't think of another term for it. You're absolutely right, though -- some people might like bug-eyed snakes.

All animal breeding is a very loaded topic, with a lot of contentious issues. I think it all ultimately often comes down to what is considered acceptable within the community of people that work with that animal -- but I think sometimes it is important to consider it from an outside perspective.

For example, there are some breeders of English bulldogs who will just take it as a given that the animal will need multiple surgeries (airway surgery, eye surgery) at a relatively young age. It's just a part of owning a bulldog. To them, it's "normal," and it's acceptable. In my mind that doesn't make it acceptable. I go to a school where the word "breeder" (and "exotic pet," FWIW) are considered dirty words by an awful lot of people, and I see an awful lot of judging going on every day, so I try very hard not to be judgmental. However, I just don't believe that deliberately and consciously breeding for a dog that you know will eventually need a surgery to survive past a couple years of age can ever be considered acceptable.

I'm not about to compare spiders to English bulldogs -- not by a long shot. And indeed, in my mind I really don't see much that's ethically unacceptable about breeding, say, a duck-billed super cinny or a bug-eyed lesser, provided those things don't affect the animal's health (which they really don't seem to from what I can see). I had been under the impression that they were undesirable largely because they are "deviants" from the normal physical conformation of snake, which seems to be overall undesirable to this community. Maybe that's changing, though. (Who knows, maybe in the future we'll even start to see selection for morphologic characteristics other than color ...)

And as for the spiders -- yes, I agree 100% -- it is very much like the myotonic goats. (I don't know too much about waltzing mice, though I can guess about it ...) I don't know that I am totally comfortable with the idea of selecting for an animal that falls down when it gets too excited, either. To be honest, since I've never met a myotonic goat (to my knowledge), I can't really comment on it, but I will say that I don't take it as a given that the breeding of myotonic goats is ethically acceptable.

Clearly the propagation of spider ball pythons is, by and large, accepted within our immediate ball python community. I can tell you, though, that when I mention it to other veterinary professionals (or non-ball python herp people), the reaction I get most often is, "Oh, so people don't breed those now that they know about it, right?" :rolleyes: Well ...

I am still running my male bumblebee through my females, FWIW ... Though I am debating making this my last year with the morph. I don't know.

Ironically, as far as the caramels -- I am still tentatively planning on going forward with them. For some reason, I have very little internal debate there -- even though my little poll is clearly indicating that on the whole, ball python people are much more concerned about the ethics of caramel breeding than spider balls (though I wonder -- how much is ethics and how much is economics? You can sell a spinny spider because it's commonly accepted, but you can't get rid of a kinked caramel ...) I think that for me, the path for that project is obvious -- one kinked baby and I nix the project. Over and done. For the spiders, my biggest worry is that I'll hold back a perfect, gorgeous three or four banger combo (or worse, sell one) that later in life turns into a spastic train wreck. :(

... That post was also stupid long, but more rambling than pedantic ...

---

I don't think people would like the morphs with problems. It seems more like they are trying to cover up for it.

Breeder 1-
I like the spider problems. It gives them personality.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Breeder 2-
I hope that someday the spiders can be bred out of all of the problems.

If someone reads this whole thread, they will see both 'breeder 1, and breeder 2' typed by different people. Why would someone try to breed them out of the problems if they like them the way they are?:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kittycatpenut

I'm not going to breed caramels or spiders because of the issues. I'm going to replace the spider in combos with pinstripes partially because I like them better and partially because they don't wobble.

The whole "duckbill" thing seems to be asthetic only. I actually think it's cute, so I will be breeding super black pastels.

How often do the pop eyes appear in BELs, and do they also appear in super fires ( or any black eyed lucy), super mojos, and lesser/mojos?

I heard powerballs (super spotnose) wobble but grow out of it, but I can't find much info about that.

I didn't know deserts had any problems but I never really liked them anyway.

I have no problems about keeping spiders as pets but personally I wouldn't breed them.

---

There are very few people that keep spiders as pets, compared to the number that breed them.

Also, look at what people have done to dogs. Years from now, I'm sure there will be some pretty screwed up 'shapes' of ball pythons. This is just the beginning.

"Of course not. If it bothered you, you probably wouldn't have spiders, since the mutation is not natural, and most people NOT into reptiles are actually the only ones that realize that. Someone above already said that about reptile vets.

Also, it doesn't matter if it bothers you, it's the snake that is living with it. Try shaking your head back and forth for a minutes :rolleyes:"




How patronising are you?

I would hardly compare a snake, with a slight head wobble. (few seconds before striking).
To a human shaking their head for minutes.
Pathetic comparison.

People like you put me off forums!!

Only ball python free of genetic flaw is a normal. Every morph we create is a genetic mutation. If your worried about catamels and tail kinkers then work with a line whete its not as prevelant. Im not even touchin the wobble issue. Been thete said my peace on it before on here. The wobble potential shouldnt be a deterant. I agree with mike. If your so worried about these issues maybe ball breeding is not for you. In any animal breeding you will run into issues with offspring from time to time. Its part of the deal. Anyone that says they havent hasnt been breeding long or enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kev.K

I would hardly compare a snake, with a slight head wobble. (few seconds before striking).
To a human shaking their head for minutes.
Pathetic comparison.

People like you put me off forums!!

---

No, I have seen spiders at reptile shows constantly shaking their heads for the minutes that I was at that vendor's table. I didn't even mention how they corkscrew, flip/roll over, or anything else.
I know it's not the perfect comparison. A more accurate comparison would be someone with an extreme twitch, or something else not controllable to the animal doing it. That makes it sound alot better. Why, what would you compare it to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snake lab

Only ball python free of genetic flaw is a normal. Every morph we create is a genetic mutation. If your worried about catamels and tail kinkers then work with a line whete its not as prevelant. Im not even touchin the wobble issue. Been thete said my peace on it before on here. The wobble potential shouldnt be a deterant. I agree with mike. If your so worried about these issues maybe ball breeding is not for you. In any animal breeding you will run into issues with offspring from time to time. Its part of the deal. Anyone that says they havent hasnt been breeding long or enough.

---

Most morphs are genetic color and pattern flaws. They are NOT deformities, like the caramel is. I know there can be two-headed animals, Siamese twins, or any other deformity in animals. It's not that other morphs won't ever have them, but it's extremely less likely.
Compare a pastel to a caramel. If you breed caramels, it's practically asking for kinked animals. Of course one in a huge number of pastels could be kinked, but it is more of a random thing. It is associated with caramels.
Animals in the wild sometimes are deformed. I'm not saying that all normals are perfect either, but when there are morphs associated with problems, that's not even comparable to breeding normals, or other problem-free morphs.