Wild Morphs

so when i first got into the snake game i had the impression that “morphs” were exclusively specimens that had been line bred to be that way and that it was all a bunch of Frankenstein stuff - this has been beginning to change for me given my research given that i found out that a lot of “morphs” that i thought were 100% artificial human creations were actually wild occurring morphs like for example in Burmese pythons the Granite, Albino, Labyrinth, Hypo, Patternless, etc were all founded by wild caught specimens from countries like Thailand and elsewhere by keepers like Bob Clark, Michael Cole, Tom Weidner, etc

relatedly i know that “Patternless” is a wild occurring morph in scrub pythons and African rock pythons too - so i guess to what extent is this true among snake species? and, further, is “accentuating nature” i.e. producing natural rarities the same as “preserving nature” i.e. preserving the natural/normal beauty of nature?

All morphs are ~technically naturally occurring whether they were found in the wild or spontaneously appeared in captive populations. Selective combinations of multiple morphs is the "frankenstein" part.

Line breeding does work to enhance the probability of expressing (and degree of expression) of various phenotypes inherited as a polygenic trait related primarily to color and pattern (tiger coastal carpets for example).

There are patternless scrubs, yes. They have not been verifiably proven to be able to pass this trait to offspring in a dominant/incomplete dominant/polygenic/recessive fashion and as such are simply a natural phenotypic variety until that can be proven otherwise. Patternless rock pythons are a proven recessive means of inheritance.

"so i guess to what extent is this true among snake species? and, further, is “accentuating nature” i.e. producing natural rarities the same as “preserving nature” i.e. preserving the natural/normal beauty of nature?"

Anomalies in nature like albinism, patternless and whatever else typically equate to failures when compared to the "norm" within their species. Millions of years of evolution allowed animals to change and adapt to succeed.

"Producing natural rarities" in this sense, is producing animals that would more than likely struggle or fail in nature so it isn't preserving "the natural/normal beauty of nature".

It is actually producing unnatural/abnormal animals. Beauty is completely subjective in this case.

What is true among snake species is success due to adaptation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmcrook

All morphs are ~technically naturally occurring whether they were found in the wild or spontaneously appeared in captive populations. Selective combinations of multiple morphs is the "frankenstein" part.

---

i didn’t think about spontaneous occurrences within captivity and to that end i think that would lead naturally to a really interesting (and perhaps critical) reexamination of this dichotomy of “wild vs captive”

Quote:

---

Line breeding does work to enhance the probability of expressing (and degree of expression) of various phenotypes inherited as a polygenic trait related primarily to color and pattern (tiger coastal carpets for example).

There are patternless scrubs, yes. They have not been verifiably proven to be able to pass this trait to offspring in a dominant/incomplete dominant/polygenic/recessive fashion and as such are simply a natural phenotypic variety until that can be proven otherwise. Patternless rock pythons are a proven recessive means of inheritance.

---

i didn’t know this re: scrub pythons - i had just assumed that if it was true for burms, African rocks, and other large pythons then it would be true for them but that’s a silly error on my part

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gio

"so i guess to what extent is this true among snake species? and, further, is “accentuating nature” i.e. producing natural rarities the same as “preserving nature” i.e. preserving the natural/normal beauty of nature?"

Anomalies in nature like albinism, patternless and whatever else typically equate to failures when compared to the "norm" within their species. Millions of years of evolution allowed animals to change and adapt to succeed.

"Producing natural rarities" in this sense, is producing animals that would more than likely struggle or fail in nature so it isn't preserving "the natural/normal beauty of nature".

It is actually producing unnatural/abnormal animals. Beauty is completely subjective in this case.

What is true among snake species is success due to adaptation.

---

i find this supremely interesting as well because i do think that what you have outlined is generally true but not always eg: yes, my regular albino dwarf burm would standout and be more susceptible to predation during her early stages *however* i would argue that my granite mainland Burm is even *more* adapted to camouflaging comparative to normal types - would be an interesting thing to field study ngl but to that end i think that also brings into question what i said about re-examining how we think of “captivity” insomuch as it is or can be an idyllic form of nature with special benefits eg: perfect consistent weather, no chance of predation, etc - technically you could say that’s “unnatural” but i would argue that it is and it is not

but with that said - i don’t think that characterization of albinos as being “unnatural” is something i would agree with because they are, objectively, naturally occurring they’re just not always successful - which technically, that could be said of normals too - i would argue the “unnatural” designation should apply to artificially created/line bred morphs like “scaleless anything”

We do call morphs 'maladaptive' and 'abnormal' and such, but as survival adaptations they play a role that is no less useful than camouflage or heat pits or any other adaptive trait. Genetic morphs are contributing to the success of the species.

It is only when we pretend that there's a distinction between the human world and the natural world (as if H. sapiens is something sui generis) that these morph animals look maladaptive. Humans and the human world are part of evolutionary processes, too -- at this point, we're one of the strongest forces of evolutionary pressure.

While it is true that morph animals are 'maladaptive' in relation to the "natural" environment, that doesn't make them maladaptive full stop, since all adaptive traits are relative to the animal's current environment. A multi morph snake probably wouldn't survive in "the wild", but neither would many species that have adapted to a novel environment (flightless island birds, for example -- return them to the mainland and they would be wiped out, but on the island flightlessness is adaptive).

I completely agree with many of the the implications when people use words like 'Frankenstein' and 'abnormal', but those are moral claims, not claims about evolutionary adaptation. From an evolutionary point of view, morphs are completely normal.

"but those are moral claims, not claims about evolutionary adaptation. From an evolutionary point of view, morphs are completely normal."


Either I misunderstood what was being asked or my response was misunderstood.

Semantics regarding the word "normal" perhaps?

Do morphs, anomalies, occur in nature? The answer is yes. Are they the norm? The answer is no.

Is producing these mutations in a breeding program preserving "natural/normal beauty of nature?"

Yes and no. You are preserving something that has/does occur naturally on occasion, but it is NOT the norm. Mutations/anomalies are rare. The beauty part as I stated above is completely subjective.

From an evolutionary standpoint, the strongest, best equipped are the survivors.

The coloring and pattern schemes exist because of adaptation. Those traits assist in combating predation when the animals are young and vulnerable. Furthermore, in the case of many snakes, coloring and pattern allow camouflage for ambush feeding. Beyond that there are adaptations for thermogenesis and so on.

A mutation is a change in DNA and there are various reasons for the cause. Sometimes an external source other times its a "mistake" during cell division. Again, it is not NORMAL in the sense I'm speaking about it.

If the same mutations started popping up more frequently in a given population/location, one would have to look at the reasons for the occurrence. If the mutations were to continue, calling it normal would fit in this instance and the mutated population would eventually become the best adapted. That scenario could take millions of years however.

Maybe the answer here is the breeder would be producing a naturally occurring rarity.

In regards to what's natural, I think the only 100% truly unnatural phenomenon in captivity would be hybrids of species that would never cross paths in the wild (like a ball/burm python pairing for example). Morph combos would be a close second though, since in the wild they would imply astronomical odds of two different morphs occurring, surviving into adulthood, and happening to mate with each other to produce dual gene offspring. Let alone 3+ gene combos where the odds become all but impossible.

@Gio, just to clarify I was just giving input to the general topic under discussion, not attempting to contradict you or anyone. :)

If anything, this is the idea I was working with: "re-examining how we think of “captivity” insomuch as it is or can be an idyllic form of nature with special benefits eg: perfect consistent weather, no chance of predation, etc - technically you could say that’s “unnatural” but i would argue that it is and it is not "

You're right about the semantics issue. 'Normal' can refer to statistical likelihood, or to a genetic allele ('normal' vs 'albino'), but in the morph vs wildtype discussions, especially when the negative 'abnormal' is used, it usually has an evaluative aspect that is essential to the argument being made. Heck, the word 'normative' means 'evaluative' or 'prescriptive'. 'Normal' is a messy term, and I should have avoided it.

"From an evolutionary standpoint, the strongest, best equipped are the survivors." Well, sort of; it has nothing essential to do with strength or equipment (unless these terms are used very broadly), it has to do only with reproductive success. The 'best equipped' in the current captive environment are the morph animals. Being a morph animal makes it much more likely (in the BP case anyway; other species have different adaptive pressures) that the animal will successfully reproduce since hardly anyone breeds 'wild-type'. 'Wild-type' isn't adaptive in captivity, relative to most morphs. Relative success at passing on genes is evolutionary fitness.

My point was largely about the fact that evolutionary pressures go on in captivity, too, and at a far greater speed and with much easier-to-see outcomes. Conservation/zoo breeding discussions and academic discussions understand that evolutionary pressures are caused by human intervention, both intentional and inadvertent, both direct and indirect, both in the wild and in captive populations and in populations that don't fit either of those categories very cleanly, but don't necessarily make the strong sort of 'natural vs unnatural' distinction that crops up in casual discussions like those among herp keepers.

A readable book on some of these deeper topics of adaptation is Dawkin's 'The Selfish Gene', which unrelatedly but somewhat amusingly coined the term 'meme'.

Cool discussion, at any rate. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malum Argenteum

@Gio, just to clarify I was just giving input to the general topic under discussion, not attempting to contradict you or anyone. :)

If anything, this is the idea I was working with: "re-examining how we think of “captivity” insomuch as it is or can be an idyllic form of nature with special benefits eg: perfect consistent weather, no chance of predation, etc - technically you could say that’s “unnatural” but i would argue that it is and it is not "

You're right about the semantics issue. 'Normal' can refer to statistical likelihood, or to a genetic allele ('normal' vs 'albino'), but in the morph vs wildtype discussions, especially when the negative 'abnormal' is used, it usually has an evaluative aspect that is essential to the argument being made. Heck, the word 'normative' means 'evaluative' or 'prescriptive'. 'Normal' is a messy term, and I should have avoided it.

"From an evolutionary standpoint, the strongest, best equipped are the survivors." Well, sort of; it has nothing essential to do with strength or equipment (unless these terms are used very broadly), it has to do only with reproductive success. The 'best equipped' in the current captive environment are the morph animals. Being a morph animal makes it much more likely (in the BP case anyway; other species have different adaptive pressures) that the animal will successfully reproduce since hardly anyone breeds 'wild-type'. 'Wild-type' isn't adaptive in captivity, relative to most morphs. Relative success at passing on genes is evolutionary fitness.

My point was largely about the fact that evolutionary pressures go on in captivity, too, and at a far greater speed and with much easier-to-see outcomes. Conservation/zoo breeding discussions and academic discussions understand that evolutionary pressures are caused by human intervention, both intentional and inadvertent, both direct and indirect, both in the wild and in captive populations and in populations that don't fit either of those categories very cleanly, but don't necessarily make the strong sort of 'natural vs unnatural' distinction that crops up in casual discussions like those among herp keepers.

A readable book on some of these deeper topics of adaptation is Dawkin's 'The Selfish Gene', which unrelatedly but somewhat amusingly coined the term 'meme'.

Cool discussion, at any rate. :)

---

No worries.

I figured "normal" was the hangup.

When it comes right down to it, there is very little that is normal or natural when it comes to captive breeding.

Even when breeding "normal" or typical wild type patterns the breeder selects the pair. It is all selective breeding once humans step in.

Preservation is another part of the conversation.

In order to "preserve" a snake species, let's use a scenario based on the possible excitation of the animal that we are wanting to preserve.

If you are truly wanting to preserve the animals and reintroduce them back into the wild, you would try to produce animals that would thrive in their environment.

That shouldn't include breeding mutations that would have an immediate disadvantage because of morph like traits. There are reasons snakes and other animals look like they do.

Successful reproduction in the wild requires both male and female to be able to survive and gain the strength required to find a mate and to copulate (strongest/best equipped). In some species of snake, literal size and strength play a significant role as male combat outcomes decide which animals will mate.

If you are basing success of a species in the wild solely on reproduction, you are missing everything it takes to get to that point. A starving snake isn't going to make it to a position to be reproductive, nor is a snake that can't hide from predators. Reproduction may be the end goal, but survival is paramount as without it, there is no reproduction. It is the circle of life, but in order to complete the circle other factors come into play.




You could also look at preservation another way. To "preserve" a trait that pops up in nature very rarely. It all depends on what you are looking to preserve.

See what I'm getting at?

I just looked at the question from the position of the further preservation of the species and being able to reintroduce the animals back into the wild.

Years back when I bred some California native rosy boas, it was from healthy unrelated w/c* local snakes (*not caught by me- taken on from others that lost interest). What made me very proud of them was that they seemed to be snakes that would survive if wild. Why? They were born "biters" & ready to take on prey- not the most ideal pet snakes- not "sweet & docile" like most people want, but serious little predators that bit readily. :snake2: It's not only fancy colors that diminish a snake's ability to survive, but their attitudes. The opposite often happens with c/b snakes- even the wimpy ones are coaxed along, & force-fed if they won't eat. Not saying that's right or wrong when they're pets, but you end up with weaker snakes in the long-run- not what nature demands. Snakes need to eat to thrive & survive, just to get to breeding size.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bogertophis

Years back when I bred some California native rosy boas, it was from healthy unrelated w/c* local snakes (*not caught by me- taken on from others that lost interest). What made me very proud of them was that they seemed to be snakes that would survive if wild. Why? They were born "biters" & ready to take on prey- not the most ideal pet snakes- not "sweet & docile" like most people want, but serious little predators that bit readily. :snake2: It's not only fancy colors that diminish a snake's ability to survive, but their attitudes. The opposite often happens with c/b snakes- even the wimpy ones are coaxed along, & force-fed if they won't eat. Not saying that's right or wrong when they're pets, but you end up with weaker snakes in the long-run- not what nature demands. Snakes need to eat to thrive & survive, just to get to breeding size.

---

i think this is dependent on a lot of things - the species of the snake being 1 i think because i think some are naturally more shy, docile, etc - to which i think that would be only drawn out more in a stable captive environment

i also think it depends on the environment given - not to be a b-word or anything but i think it only stands to reason that snakes would be products of their environment just like any other animal - so, if you have a highly intelligent animal in a box with nothing but newspaper and a water bowl, it probably would be lethargic and bored and to the same token, if you had a nice naturalistic enclosure with which the snake could properly engage in, they would probably act more akin to how they would in nature because that’s what the enclosure would allow

like for example - my African rock has access to climbing stuff, multiple hides, plants to hide in, large water bowl to soak and swim in, etc - so i am always catching him being active at night and up to things or in various different spots throughout the day - but that couldn’t be possible if he didn’t have the opportunity

and per your comments about biting and so on - i also think using my African rock as an example here would be interesting because he is by far the most timid snake i have however he also slams prey with a disproportionate force that makes it seem unreal given his size and my sense from this is, given that there is no real reason for them to be on edge or in fear given the lack of natural predation concerns, their real personalities can then shine thru - his happens to be a shy boi lol

another interesting example i think - separate from reptiles - would be chimpanzees where in the wild, if scarcity is present they can turn into cannibalistic gangs whereas on nature reserves where their is actual abundance and scarcity is not the case they behave the complete opposite and are a v social, collectivist group - in this respect, i feel here too it could be said that their true personalities where able to shine thru given this

"i also think it depends on the environment given - not to be a b-word or anything but i think it only stands to reason that snakes would be products of their environment just like any other animal - so, if you have a highly intelligent animal in a box with nothing but newspaper and a water bowl, it probably would be lethargic and bored and to the same token, if you had a nice naturalistic enclosure with which the snake could properly engage in, they would probably act more akin to how they would in nature because that’s what the enclosure would allow "

I've run across some interesting discussions of WC vs CB rosy boas. It seems that rosies in the wild virtually never bite when captured, although they can develop the tendency after time in human custody. That foody behavior seems more an artifact of captivity, not only because it is reportedly rare in freshly WC specimens but also since it isn't unusual for captive rosies to try to eat literally anything (actually constricting sweatshirts, striking at water bowls and new breeding partners). Attempting to eat non-prey items (including human hands) sure seems more pathological than adaptive.

"so, if you have a highly intelligent animal in a box with nothing but newspaper and a water bowl, it probably would be lethargic and bored and to the same token, if you had a nice naturalistic enclosure with which the snake could properly engage in, they would probably act more akin to how they would in nature because that’s what the enclosure would allow "
"

Naturalistic enclosures are nice, I'm an advocate for setting up as many options for the snake as reasonably possible. A naturalistic enclosure is only our interpretation of nature. The snake doesn't "care" about much beyond the basics to sustain life.

The caging I use has a pleasing look me. I like the fake plants and the realistic hides, whatever realistic actually is. Climbing and perching options certainly have benefits when housing semi arboreal animals, and are a necessity when caring for completely arboreal snakes.

Some of the best examples I can think of that may defy human perception of what a wild snake would choose for a living quarters are in Australia.

I happen to own a Brisbane, locality, coastal carpet python. Coastal carpet pythons are a very, very common snake in east/southeast Australia.


There are hundreds of examples of that locale and others that don't live in the bush. Instead they have chosen to move into attics, garages, under porches or in yard debris.

Photos of some of the snakes in attics show next to nothing around them other than old sheds, urates, and feces. Nothing we humans would approve of for a setup. A lot of these animals are huge, thriving examples that seem to have occupied their quarters for quite some time.

I find the carpet group to be very adaptive capitalizing on human encroachment. Still wild, still in the wild, but not our perception of a wild type enclosure or what we'd think of first when thinking about where a wild snake would live.

I don't personally prefer a sterile cage with newspaper substrate, but I certainly can't knock the setup. When you are able to find healthy wild snakes living under sheet metal or cardboard in a garage or shed it certainly makes you think about what the "ultimate environment" for a snake is.

There are obviously many variables, but it's a safe bet to assume a snake that has all its needs met will stay put and show little preference between newspaper or natural substrate or what our ideas of the "perfect living quarters" are. Mating behavior may cause permanent or temporary relocation though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gio

I don't personally prefer a sterile cage with newspaper substrate, but I certainly can't knock the setup. When you are able to find healthy wild snakes living under sheet metal or cardboard in a garage or shed it certainly makes you think about what the "ultimate environment" for a snake is.

---

Well said my friend. It's important that keepers acknowledge that these animals are all individuals and have different personal preferences.

Sure, a species may be well known for being outgoing/inquisitive/etc but some individuals are very shy and reclusive. I have 4 carpets. No two of them have the same behaviors, cage activity, etc. I have 6 boas. There are some shared traits but each of them behaves in their own distinct ways.

I've even found that some of my animals display more "natural" behaviors the more minimally I decorate their enclosures. Just the opposite with others. We have to keep in mind that the "naturalistic" design of many of our enclosures is more for the keeper than the kept, even if the animals do utilize much of the amenities we afford them. I have animals in fully decked out enclosures down to minimalistic tubs in racks. All are thriving. There are many ways to do things right and many ways to do things wrong. It's good to take it slow when starting out, try lots of different things, take notes as to how it impacts the animals as well as your methods of keeping them.

All this is I guess to say OP, try not to paint with too broad a brush or make too many assumptions this early in keeping snakes. We're in the golden age of reptile keeping but that can be a blessing and a curse. Lots of information out there and a lot of it is garbage. Got to sift through the dirt to get to the gold.

Hope this isn't too ramble-y but I've got to get back to work. No time for edits.