Quote Originally Posted by Russ Lawson View Post
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.
except with ball pythons living as ground dwelling, nocturnal animals pigmentation and coloration are less important on the survival strategy than being able to hunt and find food, find shelter, etc. That is why SO many mutations have been found.

It is true that the more normal resembling morphs are more common, hypos, yellowbellies, abbarrent patterns, etc. But almost every year there are WC morphs like albinos, leucies and pieds. Sure there aren't as many compared to the animals that are more normal looking but the chances of a codom morph being found have to be higher because you end up with babies the first generation (the possibility of morph babies the first generation) with recessives both parents obviously have to have copies so the likely hood of two het albinos finding eachother, breeding successfully, the female successfully laying eggs and raising the babies is lower.

Its not like we're talking about a daiernal prey-type animals here (albino and piebald deer for example). Predators are ALL over those things because they stand out.

Pardon the spelling mistakes, the computer i'm on at the moment doesn't have spell check.