Are ball pythons a domesticated species?

[ev477]

Since the idea of domestication is a social construct, it is important to look at varying definitions of the term. Here is a definition of domestication you might use for an in depth study of the anthropology of pet ownership or inter-species interactions:

According to evolutionary biologist Jared Diamond, animal species must meet six criteria in order to be considered for domestication:
1. Flexible diet — Creatures that are willing to consume a wide variety of food sources and can live off less cumulative food from the food pyramid (such as corn or wheat) are less expensive to keep in captivity. Carnivores by their very nature only feed on meat, which requires the expenditure of many animals.
2. Reasonably fast growth rate — Fast maturity rate compared to the human life span allows breeding intervention and makes the animal useful within an acceptable duration of caretaking. Large animals such as elephants require many years before they reach a useful size.
3. Ability to be bred in captivity — Creatures that are reluctant to breed when kept in captivity do not produce useful offspring, and instead are limited to capture in their wild state. Creatures such as the panda, antelope and giant forest hogs are territorial when breeding and cannot be maintained in crowded enclosures in captivity.
4. Pleasant disposition — Large creatures that are aggressive toward humans are dangerous to keep in captivity. The African buffalo has an unpredictable nature and is highly dangerous to humans. Although similar to domesticated pigs in many ways, American peccaries and Africa's warthogs and bushpigs are also dangerous in captivity.
5. Temperament which makes it unlikely to panic — A creature with a nervous disposition is difficult to keep in captivity as they will attempt to flee whenever they are startled. The gazelle is very flighty and it has a powerful leap that allows it to escape an enclosed pen. Some animals, such as Domestic sheep, still have a strong tendency to panic when their flight zone is crossed. However, most sheep also show a flocking instinct, whereby they stay close together when pressed. Livestock with such an instinct may be herded by people and dogs.
6. Modifiable social hierarchy — Social creatures that recognize a hierarchy of dominance can be raised to recognize a human as the pack leader.

(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/domesticated) Here is a general definition, much more simplified:

do⋅mes⋅ti⋅cate
   /dəˈmɛstɪˌkeɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [duh-mes-ti-keyt] Show IPA Pronunciation
verb, -cat⋅ed, -cat⋅ing.
–verb (used with object)
1. to convert (animals, plants, etc.) to domestic uses; tame.
2. to tame (an animal), esp. by generations of breeding, to live in close association with human beings as a pet or work animal and usually creating a dependency so that the animal loses its ability to live in the wild.
3. to adapt (a plant) so as to be cultivated by and beneficial to human beings.
4. to accustom to household life or affairs.
5. to take (something foreign, unfamiliar, etc.) for one's own use or purposes; adopt.
6. to make more ordinary, familiar, acceptable, or the like: to domesticate radical ideas.

Sure if you want to really argue that snakes are not pets because of 6 on the first list, go ahead. I would argue that the first definition is an over-analysis of the term. This is because people have been arguing that because of this definition, cats might not be considered domestic animals. There may be a spectrum between wild and domestic, but I don't think that is really important right now. I really do not believe that cats are wild animals, and if so, please point me to the first zoo that has a house-cat on display or where I could go to see this spectacle in its natural environment.

By looking at a definition from the dictionary, I would argue that snakes are indeed domesticated. This may not be true of ball-pythons, but I think snakes that are aggressive by nature will fit into this category. I would like to think that you can tame a snake. I'm assuming that the giant snake industry would be a lot less appealing if every retic or burm was as vicious as it was as a hatchling or as it's wild counterpart. Snakes also live in close associations with humans. Humans control the environments and diets.

There is no right or wrong here because you have to remember, domestic is not even real. Domestic is a word made up by humans to describe an occurrence in nature. There is no real domestication because we only perceive certain actions as domesticating or domestication. Snakes don't seem to care whether they are domestic or not. I don't think we should care too much either.

[blackcrystal22]

My idea of domestication is creating a new species through human contact that is beneficial to humans.
2 or 3 generations is not domesticated. I wouldn't consider anything other than 60-80 generations to be domesticated.

Cows, Pigs, Cats, Dogs, and even some Horses have been altered from their original wild ancestors, over hundreds of years for human benefit.
You wouldn't be able to find a naturally born and bred generation of black and white dairy cows in the wild that wasn't released by a human at some point. Wild pigs are VERY different from domesticated pigs.
Dogs even have a multitude of influenced breeds, when it really all originated with coyotes and wolves. (And I don't mean by colors, like with morphs, because that's genetic and can occur over one generation, while actual structure takes many more.)

When people say 'wild cats' I don't really understand. There is no such thing as 'wild house cats'. They are loose domesticated cats.

So no, I don't think snakes will ever be able to be domesticated, because we really have no benefit out of them other than pets, and even then they aren't very beneficial because they have such little intelligence.
I think parrots could be eventually, but it would take a lot of time. They are intelligent but I would think it to be harder than with mammals for some reason. I don't have any facts behind that, just a hunch.

[Egapal]

WOW

I don't see that at all in many animals that have long been considered to be 'domesticated' Even a quick glance at most poultry will show that many of the ducks, geese or turkeys are NOT significantly different then their wild counterparts. In some cases, not even the paint job is different. The only difference being that some of them are living in the wild, and some of them are living in farmyards... Physically, many of them are identical.

Ducks, geese, and turkey are like ball pythons, very easy to keep. The ones that are signifigantly altered from their wild counterparts are domestic the others are not. If you do a little research you will find that domestic poultry is different than their wild counterparts. Domestic ducks for instance are larger and the males and females look much more alike than wild ducks.

People who keep poultry will tell you that there is a difference and the differences are examples of domestication.

Actually, animals are NOT wild until proven otherwise... I think that the main criteria should be WHERE THEY ARE FOUND IN THE FIRST PLACE....... I tend to think of animals FOUND in the wild as wild animals, however I tend to think of animals FOUND in my basement where I have been breeding, feeding and caring for them through many generations to NOT be wild animals.

This is just silly. If you truely believe that a tiger in a zoo is domestic than we should just not talk about this anymore.

I've re-read my posts, and I don't see where you can even make the assumptions that you are. No, I DON'T 'really disagree with the assertion that they are not domestic' at all. That's YOUR preconceived notions that are coloring your comments. I've merely been questioning why people have been SO adamant that their snakes are wild animals. It seems to me that the main reason people have been putting forth the argument that ball pythons are NOT domesticated, is because they don't WANT them to be domesticated and for no other reason. I have not heard a reasonable argument on EITHER side of the argument about why they either should or should not be considered domesticated. Personally I would rather not label them either way until I have a more thorough understanding of what 'domestication' actually is.......

I have to agree with ZinniaZ on this one. There have been many great reasons given why they are not domestic. Since you are arguing the reasons point by point I am not sure how you can say there aren't. I will concede that I am assuming that you believe they are domestic and that procncieved notion is coloring my arguments. I apologize.

And I would put forth that this IS a good reason to suspect that they are a domesticated species. You can NOT selectively breed wild animals. Wild animals will choose their own mates. Only a domesticated animal could be forced to mate with another that was not of it's own choosing.

You can selectively breed wild animals. Its actually the process called domestication. Wild animals are bred in captivity all the time. Lions, tigers, and bears, will all breed in captivity and are not domestic, oh my.

See my earlier statement on poultry. Many of the accepted 'domesticated' lines can not be differentiated from their wild counterparts. The only difference is in their upbringing. The only real difference between captive bred ball pythons and captive bred turkeys is that turkeys have been bred in captivity for a few hundred years longer. In any kind of evolutionary timeline, that's extremely insignificant.

Once again domestication is not a black and white thing. There are signifigant difference between wild turkeys and domestic ones. Size, build and behavior are the important ones. The amount of time spent domesticating the animal is not the only factor to consider. The number of generations, number of offspring, and scale of the project are all very important. The number of BP born in captivity without introducing wild genetics is unbelievably minuscule when compared to the efforts to domesticate turkeys.

Well, except for maybe cornsnakes, kingsnakes, and several dozen other species of colubrids that have been captive bred for over a dozen generations.

Non of the snakes you mentioned differ any more from wild snakes than BPs. I think that the BP trait of balling as a defense mechanism helps their flimsy case for being accepted as domesticated.

[Egapal]

I am one of the people who would state (with certain caveats) that the royal pythons and corn snakes that are captive bred for multiple generations do qualify - or will qualify with further generations - for "domesticated" status.

Domestication criteria 1: Flexibility of Diet
Our captive-bred royal pythons are fed on a diet of commercially raised Mus musculus and Rattus norvegicus - both of which are foodstuffs that are easy to provide in captivity but are significantly NOT what Python regius is consuming in the wild. Selective breeding for ready consumption of easily obtainable foodstuffs meets the criteria of "flexible diet".
Domestication criteria 2: Reasonably Fast Growth Rate
Birth to ability to breed in a year - despite wild animals almost certainly taking longer to mature enough to successfully reproduce? I think that qualifies as a rapid growth rate, especially when compared to horses and other large hooved mammals that are considered domesticated.
Domestication criteria 3: Will Breed in Captivity
Well, I don't think it's possible to argue this one, no matter what Animal Rights groups might want to say about reptile keeping... there are multiple generations of captive-bred animals out there, and verifiably multiple-generation-captive-bred based on the visual mutations they display.
Domestication criteria 4: Pleasant Disposition
Royal pythons certainly have one of the nicest and most tractable temperaments of any snake I've ever worked with. You get the occasional biter, but generally they acclimatise well to handling... better than any domesticated Syrian hamster!
Domestication criteria 5: Unlikely to Panic
Again, this is a disposition thing - they may panic, but they don't bolt in such a way that they're liable to harm themselves or their handler; I wouldn't actually consider this a major criteria simply because many domesticated animals (pigeons, sheep, budgies, goldfish) also display panic behaviour on occasion.
Domestication criteria 6: Social Hierarchy
I don't believe this is a genuine domestication criteria. I don't think a domestic chicken thinks YOU are the head of the flock (especially if that chicken is living in a battery farm) any more than a goldfish sees you as the head of a shoal.

And one thing that the "criteria" on Wikipedia hasn't mentioned is the selective breeding for human-desirable traits OR the commercial usage of the species. We have done both of these things to royal pythons.

Now, I would say that WILD CAUGHT royal pythons absolutely are not domesticated - and until there are no further wild-caught bloodlines coming in, it is unlikely that there will be a scientifically described Python regius familiaris.

These criteria are the criteria that should be used when considering domesticating a wild animal not really criteria to be classified as domesticated. For all of the reasons you list I would say that domestication of BP could be possible.

I disagree with your first point. Ball pythons primary food source is wild rodents and they do not suffer by eating them solely. I don't see any evidence that selective breeding has helped to change their diet in any way. Conditioning on a case by case basis certainly has been done and does help in many cases. Although I disagree with the assertion that BP have a flexible diet I would say that modern shipping and globalization has made a flexible diet much less necessary for domestication.

I also agree that recognizing a social hierarchy is not quite as important as the rest of the criteria.

[Jenn]

Without the intervention of people most domesticated animals will revert back to the wild in just a few short generations. But if you take your favorite Ball Python back to Africa and release it, it would do just fine. We have not altered their basic needs or their anatomy in any way whatsoever. Not domestic.

[JeffJ]

domesticated
Also found in: Encyclopedia, Wikipedia
do·mes·ti·cate (d-mst-kt)
tr.v. do·mes·ti·cat·ed, do·mes·ti·cat·ing, do·mes·ti·cates
1. To cause to feel comfortable at home; make domestic.
2. To adopt or make fit for domestic use or life.
3.
a. To train or adapt (an animal or plant) to live in a human environment and be of use to humans.
b. To introduce and accustom (an animal or plant) into another region; naturalize.
4. To bring down to the level of the ordinary person.
n. (-kt, -kt)
A plant or animal that has been adapted to live in a human environment.


the bolded key terms leads me to say no. We havnt made BP's useful to us besides companionship. its not like a hoarse that you use to pull your buggy or ride. and as far as adapting it to live in a human environment. this criteria has not been met either they still require there own micro habitat to live comfortably and stress free. you don't come home from work with your BP Chilling on the couch and using a litter box to defecate. no does it sleef by your feet in your bed. id say its pretty prone to needing a natural replica habitat.

[Ssthisto]

So no, I don't think snakes will ever be able to be domesticated, because we really have no benefit out of them other than pets, and even then they aren't very beneficial because they have such little intelligence.

You could say the same of domestic canaries, hamsters and other small pet animals - they are of no use to humans except for entertainment/pets, cannot be used easily for food or to obtain food ... but they've been selectively bred to show traits that are of interest to humans.

And a "green" Serinus canaria domestica canary is pretty indistinguishable from a wild Serinus canaria.

That said, I could see Burmese pythons being bred for meat and domesticated to that purpose - royal clutch sizes are just too small to make them practical meat animals.

I disagree with your first point. Ball pythons primary food source is wild rodents and they do not suffer by eating them solely.

Neither does a domestic cat suffer from eating a diet solely composed of wild rodents or birds (and in fact they benefit from eating a whole-prey diet, kibble is not the best diet for a cat) - the fact that they CAN survive on the wild diet is not the point. Of course a many-generations-captive-bred royal python would survive very well on a diet of jerboas, multimammates and other similar African rodents.

I don't see any evidence that selective breeding has helped to change their diet in any way. Conditioning on a case by case basis certainly has been done and does help in many cases. Although I disagree with the assertion that BP have a flexible diet I would say that modern shipping and globalization has made a flexible diet much less necessary for domestication.

If breeders (intentionally or otherwise) select royal pythons that are willing to eat domesticated, defrostedrodents (mice and rats) instead of insisting on live African rodents like Multimammates (their natural diet) as their breeding stock, then that is a form of selective breeding to accept a specific diet. I certainly won't be breeding animals that won't take domestic rodents as prey and I won't be perpetuating offspring that won't either.

This has been done with certain lines of cornsnakes - selecting the offspring that are willing to accept mouse pinks instead of insisting on the wild hatchling diet of anolis lizards.

the bolded key terms leads me to say no. We havnt made BP's useful to us besides companionship. its not like a hoarse that you use to pull your buggy or ride. and as far as adapting it to live in a human environment. this criteria has not been met either they still require there own micro habitat to live comfortably and stress free. you don't come home from work with your BP Chilling on the couch and using a litter box to defecate. no does it sleef by your feet in your bed. id say its pretty prone to needing a natural replica habitat.

Canaries are of no practical use except as novelty pets, but they are domestic animals.
Hamsters require their own microhabitats in order to live comfortably, but they're also domestic animals.

Royal pythons are useful to humans in one major way - people are breeding novelty mutations and selling them for money. Whether the end user is a pet keeper or someone who's trying to collect enough blue-eyed leucistics to make a solid white snakeskin coat, there is a sound "use" for propogating these reptiles.

[Egapal]

You could say the same of domestic canaries, hamsters and other small pet animals - they are of no use to humans except for entertainment/pets, cannot be used easily for food or to obtain food ... but they've been selectively bred to show traits that are of interest to humans.

And a "green" Serinus canaria domestica canary is pretty indistinguishable from a wild Serinus canaria.

Pet does not equal domestic. Many wild animals are kept as pets. I would not consider canaries domestic unless they were signifgantly different than wild canaries.

That said, I could see Burmese pythons being bred for meat and domesticated to that purpose - royal clutch sizes are just too small to make them practical meat animals.

Carnivors are not pratical as meat animals as it will always be more practical to raise the carnivors prey for its meat. They could only ever be a novelty meat for that reason and thus never be domesticated for that reason.

Neither does a domestic cat suffer from eating a diet solely composed of wild rodents or birds (and in fact they benefit from eating a whole-prey diet, kibble is not the best diet for a cat) - the fact that they CAN survive on the wild diet is not the point. Of course a many-generations-captive-bred royal python would survive very well on a diet of jerboas, multimammates and other similar African rodents.

The point I am trying to make is that they can not survive on anything but a wild diet. Ball Pythons eat rodents in the wild and we provide them with rodents in captivity. Cats eat rodents in the wild and we feed them kibble in captivity. When your Ball Python willingly eats a mouse substitute I will concede that its domestic.

If breeders (intentionally or otherwise) select royal pythons that are willing to eat domesticated, defrostedrodents (mice and rats) instead of insisting on live African rodents like Multimammates (their natural diet) as their breeding stock, then that is a form of selective breeding to accept a specific diet. I certainly won't be breeding animals that won't take domestic rodents as prey and I won't be perpetuating offspring that won't either.

Ok hold up. Captively bred and hatched ball pythons routinely refuse F/T rodents and wild caught ball pythons can be enticed to eat F/T rodents. Selective breeding has not been shown to help this one bit. Conditioning has been shown to help and the ability to condition and animal is not proof that its domestic.

This has been done with certain lines of cornsnakes - selecting the offspring that are willing to accept mouse pinks instead of insisting on the wild hatchling diet of anolis lizards.

The success of this breeding is debatable and diet is not the only reason I consider snakes of any kind to wild.

Canaries are of no practical use except as novelty pets, but they are domestic animals.
Hamsters require their own microhabitats in order to live comfortably, but they're also domestic animals.

Again there are more than one criteria for domestication. If these animals are not significantly different from their wild counterparts then I would not concede that they are domesticated. They are pets.

Royal pythons are useful to humans in one major way - people are breeding novelty mutations and selling them for money. Whether the end user is a pet keeper or someone who's trying to collect enough blue-eyed leucistics to make a solid white snakeskin coat, there is a sound "use" for propogating these reptiles.

All proof they are pets, this is not sound reasoning for them being domesticated. We have not altered the Ball Python to make them useful. We have selected the colors we like and that's it. Domestication is much much more than this. When humans selectively breed an albino tiger that does not make that tiger domestic. That makes it a selectively bred wild animal.

[blackcrystal22]

You could say the same of domestic canaries, hamsters and other small pet animals - they are of no use to humans except for entertainment/pets, cannot be used easily for food or to obtain food ... but they've been selectively bred to show traits that are of interest to humans.

And a "green" Serinus canaria domestica canary is pretty indistinguishable from a wild Serinus canaria.

Your severely confusing what I said.
Selective breeding is not domesticating over two generations to get a green canary that is only genetically different through a few generations, where it is physically identical.
Changing a wolf to a poodle is domestication, which takes hundreds of years and generations. But not just changing the physical appearance, but the way they act around humans. If an animal will come to the door to greet you with excitement for reasons other than food and water, I think that is important in domestication as well.
I have horses greet me, my cat and dog greet me, and I've seen small pigs greet their owners.

I don't think there are any 'domesticated hamsters', because most of them are identical to their wild ancestors. Generations with mice are a bit different because they breed at such an incredibly fast rate, they can be altered easier through selective breeding.
However, I don't think anyone can show me a 'mini mouse with curly hair' or a mouse that isn't the same as a field mouse with a different color.
Colors do not change the breed of animal, which is domestication in my book.

[Ssthisto]

Pet does not equal domestic. Many wild animals are kept as pets. I would not consider canaries domestic unless they were signifgantly different than wild canaries.

Canaries have been selectively bred since the 1600s - for song ability, for posture, for colouration, for feather structure. More crucially, the domestic canary has been designated its own subspecies.

The point I am trying to make is that they can not survive on anything but a wild diet. Ball Pythons eat rodents in the wild and we provide them with rodents in captivity. Cats eat rodents in the wild and we feed them kibble in captivity. When your Ball Python willingly eats a mouse substitute I will concede that its domestic.

Snake steak sausages? That's a "mouse substitute" and doesn't even have any rodent content! If I could source them I would certainly have a go at feeding them to my royals, though I would not feed it as an exclusive diet... any more than I would feed my cats exclusively on kibble.

For that matter, I would argue that the diet we provide them now is a "substitute" for their actual diet - they don't see Mus musculus or Rattus norvegicus in the wild, they're eating Praomys natalensis and other AFRICAN rodents. I know from keeping all three rodent species that Natal rats do not look like domestic mice or rats, they do not behave like domestic mice or rats, they do not move like domestic mice or rats, they do not smell like domestic mice or rats and they almost certainly don't taste like them either (not that I have a basis for comparison - I haven't tried eating any of the three.)

Your severely confusing what I said.
Selective breeding is not domesticating over two generations to get a green canary that is only genetically different through a few generations, where it is physically identical.

Canaries are four hundred years into domestication. A lot more than four generations. The greens are the ones that tend to have been selectively bred for song ability - the best singers were chosen instead of picking the ones with weird feathers or the ones with weird postures or the ones with odd colouring.

[quote]If an animal will come to the door to greet you with excitement for reasons other than food and water, I think that is important in domestication as well.[quote]
Do battery hens greet their owner?
What about range-bred, range-fed, range-reared cattle?

They're both domesticated species but they are quite often frightened of humans.

I don't think there are any 'domesticated hamsters', because most of them are identical to their wild ancestors. Generations with mice are a bit different because they breed at such an incredibly fast rate, they can be altered easier through selective breeding.
However, I don't think anyone can show me a 'mini mouse with curly hair' or a mouse that isn't the same as a field mouse with a different color.
Colors do not change the breed of animal, which is domestication in my book.

Actually, wild Syrian hamsters do not look exactly like the selectively bred odd-coloured, very large animals humans have bred in several different coat types (including long haired angoras, curly rexes, hairless and satin-coated).

I could certainly show you curly-haired mice - rex and double rex. I could also show you long-coats that look like hamsters with long tails, satin-coats that are metallic and shiny and even texels (Satin longcoat rex). Hairless? Yup. And the English show mouse (particularly the pink-eyed white) is double the size of your average wild Mus musculus - and has been type bred for very large ears, a long tail and a specific body shape.

Same goes for rats - rex, hairless and satin coats; wildtype top-eared or the odd ear set of a dumbo, dozens of colour combinations, even animals that have been bred for taillessness.

As I said, royal pythons are on their way to being domesticated and already fit quite a few of the criteria - and they won't be considered truly domesticated until there are no more wild stocks being brought in - once they've been bred exclusively in captivity for a few generations they may well be assigned a new subspecies name - Python regius familiaris, anyone?