Wild Morphs

[YungRasputin]

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?

[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.

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.

[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.

[YungRasputin]

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”

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

[YungRasputin]

"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”

[Malum Argenteum]

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.

[Gio]

"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.

[Snagrio]

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.

[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.

[Gio]

@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.