Quote Originally Posted by West Coast Jungle View Post
I agree to a certain point but is a variation in color a defect? Are different colored dogs or even people defects? Maybe its just my interpretation but to me a defect implies something wrong. Deformity would imply a physical malformation. A variation in color or pattern is more of a mutation which is not necesarily a negative as a defect or deformity imply.

Thats how I interpret it at least.
This is why I usually stick with the word mutation to describe variations from the wild-type, because words like "disfigurement" and "defect" imply negative consequences. Technically, the proteins causing mutations are disfigured, and thus defective (they don't do what they are supposed to due to misfolding caused by mutations carried over through translation). Whereas most defects would be seen to decrease the value of something, the ones that don't result in a disfigurement, or hinder the animal in some way actually increase the value to us because they are different looking. However, in the wild, most of these would be seen as a decrease in value because most mutations would stick out to predators - the likelihood that the animal with such mutations would be noticed, and subsequently preyed on would be much higher than in a wild-type individual.