Do you avoid morphs with known genetic flaws?

[Kev.K]

I have a really clean bee. She has slight wobble before she strikes, it doesn't bother me in the slightest.
My super lesser is perfect, as is my super cinny woma.
I did turn down a cheap 600g desert female. I wouldn't take the chance.

[Serpent_Nirvana]

Any time you breed the babies can be messed up. For years I have been breeding spider and spider combos, cinnys and cinny combos. Never had a genetic problem with any of the resulting babies.

That said, I have had plenty of problems with pastel, pinstripe, yellow belly and normal babies.

If you are super worried about making babies with issues, my advice to you is don't breed at all.

I meant to respond to this post, then got distracted by something shiny.

I can see what you're driving at, though I think your logic is a little bit flawed. Yes, any pairing of one animal to another animal with the intention of making baby animals brings with it the risk that the baby animals will be in some way flawed, and may even need to be humanely euthanized. There are definitely environmental (non-genetic) factors that can lead to birth defects; it can't always be avoided. I am absolutely of a belief that if you aren't willing to cull, then breeding may not be for you, because if you hatch out, say, a ball python with its organs on the outside (which does happen on occasion), you're going to need to be willing to put that poor creature out of its misery ASAP and an unwillingness to do that would be inhumane.

That said, I think there's an important difference between the risk of defects inherent in any breeding, and the risk of defects in bloodlines of animals with known heritable defects. I am not trying to state that it's uniformly wrong to breed these animals. I can see the argument that I *think* you're trying to make; that since the incidence of severe impairment in these morphs is fairly low, and the overall incidence of birth defects in pythons is relatively high due to the stresses of incubation, the additional risk of breeding these mutations is negligible. I get that; I can see that argument.

However, I think that to imply that those who wish to minimize their chances of producing flawed offspring by avoiding mutations with known flaws should avoid breeding altogether is a bit excessive, and I think somewhat misses the point. I think what I'm getting at isn't whether or not people want to produce flawed offspring; obviously nobody does. I think my question is, are you okay with propagating a mutation that is known to harbor the potential for a given flaw -- even if you personally never produce a flawed baby.

Obviously that's a totally personal preference. I think that for many, it might help to know what the actual incidence of the disease in that morph was -- for example, will 1/10 spiders be a train wreck, or is it more like 1/10,000? For some, though, even 1/10,000 is too much of a risk, and I think that's to be respected as well.

Gah, that was pedantic. Apologies.

[WingedWolfPsion]

If it's 1/10,000, then the additional risk from having the spider mutation truly is negligible. There are some folks that are simply disturbed by the ataxia of spiders, as it reminds them of ataxia in humans, which is usually associated with something unpleasant.
On the other hand, waltzing mice have their fans. Some people would never dream of breeding waltzing mice, while others love them.

It all comes around to the definition of a 'defect'. Is a change in body shape desirable, or a 'defect'? Obviously, we don't demand conformity of shape in our other pets--check the difference in shape between a pug dog and a greyhound! So, is the duckbilling that occurs in cinnamons an actual issue, or just a neat alteration of form that is desirable? Do bug eyes in a super lesser actually cause any harm?

Is a spider's ataxia substantially worse than what's seen in fainting goats, or waltzing mice?

I think calling some of these traits 'genetic flaws' is loaded language--it's making an assumption from the outset, which not everyone will agree with. Not all of these things are necessarily flaws.

They are genetic mutations. All morphs are the result of genetic mutations being propagated. If they are not obviously detrimental to these animals as PETS, why call them flaws?

[MakiMaki]

I abandoned my caramel albino project once the ultramels came along. It's too heartbreaking to hatch a severely deformed beautiful little caramel. It helps that I think ultramels are prettier.

My spiders, on the other hand, are among my favorites. All I've ever seen of a wobble is some spastic movements when it's feeding time. I've also noticed that they seem more active and inquisitive than average and have great appetites and grow well.

I'm rethinking some of my plans for my desert male because of the question about desert female reproductive ability. It's such a beautiful morph with such great combos that I won't stop working with it.

I've no plans to make super lessers or super cinnies, but I haven't avoided those morphs at all.

[Serpent_Nirvana]

If it's 1/10,000, then the additional risk from having the spider mutation truly is negligible.

I agree with this (though I know that there are some who wouldn't even take that risk, which I think is also to be respected). I don't know what the actual number is, though -- and for me, it's important to find out.

There are some folks that are simply disturbed by the ataxia of spiders, as it reminds them of ataxia in humans, which is usually associated with something unpleasant.
On the other hand, waltzing mice have their fans. Some people would never dream of breeding waltzing mice, while others love them.

It all comes around to the definition of a 'defect'. Is a change in body shape desirable, or a 'defect'? Obviously, we don't demand conformity of shape in our other pets--check the difference in shape between a pug dog and a greyhound! So, is the duckbilling that occurs in cinnamons an actual issue, or just a neat alteration of form that is desirable? Do bug eyes in a super lesser actually cause any harm?

Is a spider's ataxia substantially worse than what's seen in fainting goats, or waltzing mice?

I think calling some of these traits 'genetic flaws' is loaded language--it's making an assumption from the outset, which not everyone will agree with. Not all of these things are necessarily flaws.

I will agree that it's loaded, but I can't think of another term for it. You're absolutely right, though -- some people might like bug-eyed snakes.

All animal breeding is a very loaded topic, with a lot of contentious issues. I think it all ultimately often comes down to what is considered acceptable within the community of people that work with that animal -- but I think sometimes it is important to consider it from an outside perspective.

For example, there are some breeders of English bulldogs who will just take it as a given that the animal will need multiple surgeries (airway surgery, eye surgery) at a relatively young age. It's just a part of owning a bulldog. To them, it's "normal," and it's acceptable. In my mind that doesn't make it acceptable. I go to a school where the word "breeder" (and "exotic pet," FWIW) are considered dirty words by an awful lot of people, and I see an awful lot of judging going on every day, so I try very hard not to be judgmental. However, I just don't believe that deliberately and consciously breeding for a dog that you know will eventually need a surgery to survive past a couple years of age can ever be considered acceptable.

I'm not about to compare spiders to English bulldogs -- not by a long shot. And indeed, in my mind I really don't see much that's ethically unacceptable about breeding, say, a duck-billed super cinny or a bug-eyed lesser, provided those things don't affect the animal's health (which they really don't seem to from what I can see). I had been under the impression that they were undesirable largely because they are "deviants" from the normal physical conformation of snake, which seems to be overall undesirable to this community. Maybe that's changing, though. (Who knows, maybe in the future we'll even start to see selection for morphologic characteristics other than color ...)

And as for the spiders -- yes, I agree 100% -- it is very much like the myotonic goats. (I don't know too much about waltzing mice, though I can guess about it ...) I don't know that I am totally comfortable with the idea of selecting for an animal that falls down when it gets too excited, either. To be honest, since I've never met a myotonic goat (to my knowledge), I can't really comment on it, but I will say that I don't take it as a given that the breeding of myotonic goats is ethically acceptable.

Clearly the propagation of spider ball pythons is, by and large, accepted within our immediate ball python community. I can tell you, though, that when I mention it to other veterinary professionals (or non-ball python herp people), the reaction I get most often is, "Oh, so people don't breed those now that they know about it, right?" Well ...

I am still running my male bumblebee through my females, FWIW ... Though I am debating making this my last year with the morph. I don't know.

Ironically, as far as the caramels -- I am still tentatively planning on going forward with them. For some reason, I have very little internal debate there -- even though my little poll is clearly indicating that on the whole, ball python people are much more concerned about the ethics of caramel breeding than spider balls (though I wonder -- how much is ethics and how much is economics? You can sell a spinny spider because it's commonly accepted, but you can't get rid of a kinked caramel ...) I think that for me, the path for that project is obvious -- one kinked baby and I nix the project. Over and done. For the spiders, my biggest worry is that I'll hold back a perfect, gorgeous three or four banger combo (or worse, sell one) that later in life turns into a spastic train wreck.

... That post was also stupid long, but more rambling than pedantic ...

[Serpent_Nirvana]

And PS, HUGE thanks to everyone who has commented and voted -- this kind of a friendly debate is just what I was hoping for

[WingedWolfPsion]

Well, I think the reason more folks are concerned about the caramel kinking (including myself) is that it can be severe enough that the animal has to be euthanized, because it would be unable to move, and food could not pass through its digestive tract.

The spider mutation, on the other hand...well, I've never heard of a case, even with the train wrecks, where the animal was unable to survive. Nor do they appear to be distressed by their condition (we all know that stressed ball pythons will neither eat nor breed). If there are any cases like that, it would be impossible to know if the problem was purely the spider mutation, because developmental abnormalities in the egg can also produce neurologically impaired animals that don't thrive.

The other issues really appear to be purely cosmetic, and harmless--feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

[SlitherinSisters]

The only one of those I somewhat avoid is the Caramel because of the kinking. Maybe some day I will get into them, but only if I could find some without defect in their immediate history. For now I'm skipping over them.

[RandyRemington]

I have a caramel project but I think it's because of the potential genetic issues, lol.

When I bought my original 66% chance het male around 1999 I of course hadn't heard of the kinking issue or more recently the egg problem with homozygous caramel females. Took me forever to get eggs from him and forever again to get the three daughters up to breeding size (I'm a crappy feeder). I didn't even have a caramel gene male to try them with but then in 2010 a friend who had read my speculations that there might be an environmental variable behind how likely expression of the caramel kinking tendency is gave me a pair of 100% hets. So I'm trying the 100% het male to the three 33% chance het females and will eventually breed him to his 100% het sister. If anyone has any suggestions for anything I should do different with the gravid moms or the eggs just in case I hit on a caramel I'm all ears. If I eventually produce a caramel female then I'll have to decide what to do with her; probably keep the first one and experiment with ways to get good eggs from her. Hopefully someone else will come forward with a solution before then.

[Serpent_Nirvana]

The only one of those I somewhat avoid is the Caramel because of the kinking. Maybe some day I will get into them, but only if I could find some without defect in their immediate history. For now I'm skipping over them.

When I bought my caramel male, I viewed dozens of ads to find one that had the look I liked, then contacted only three people who had a male that was "pretty" enough for me with questions about their animals' history. Only one person even acknowledged my concerns about the kinking, and it was only after speaking to him on the phone about the issue that I bought my male.

In theory, the male I have is from a mix of bloodlines that includes an imported (unnamed) bloodline that the breeder was working with that had no past history of kinking. My plan is to breed him to a Malsin/Upscale line female (if I can find one), which, in my research seemed to have the least amount of kinking present (and be the prettiest IMO). If I get so much as one kinked animal, the project goes poof. So, we'll see ... I like the appearance of a good quality caramel a lot more than any ultramel (maybe selective breeding will help that a good bit, but for now I haven't yet seen an ultramel that at all "did it" for me), but if it does turn out that the kinking is a guarantee in any caramel bloodline, I am okay with letting the gene die.

For now, though, I'd still like to see if I can get a line going that is free of the defect (as some folks claim to have done) ... And like Randy, I'm pretty much just planning on holding back females to fiddle with technique They aren't 100% sterile -- just sub-fertile -- so it would be interesting to see if there are any variables that affect their fertility.