Do you avoid morphs with known genetic flaws?

[Genetics Breeder]

Albino musk turtle: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_4VXrkZe4Wm...usk+turtle.jpg

Blue phase (axanthic) green anole: http://i.pbase.com/g4/29/489029/2/63066576.YOGSEgI5.jpg

Albino rosy boa (there are TONS of rosy boa morphs): http://www.priceanimal.com/rosy11.jpg

Albino Hermann's Tortoise: http://albinosunlimited.com/sites/de...n/DSC_4750.JPG

Of COURSE there are morphs of these species...and if there are any tortoise species in which morphs have not yet been discovered, the moment random mutation blesses someone, it WILL be propagated. Species with no morphs still being bred? Of course...because there are no morphs. The moment one shows up, people will breed it.
Even if there are no morphs, people aren't going to leave things be...they will selectively breed for the traits they want, instead, changing the animal's appearance more slowly, over time.

As for worse problems than spiders...such as what?
Increasing the ataxia beyond what you see in spiders produces a non-viable animal that can't feed well, and doesn't thrive. So there is nothing worse...worse doesn't work.

I forgot about the ones in rosy boas. I never knew about the axanthic green anole, and it's not common. That's a razorback musk, not a stinkpot.

I wasn't talking about the wobble getting worse. I was thinking of the other problems above. I KNOW these are different examples. Compare a koi (fish) to the bubble-cheek and goldfish with huge eyes sticking out of their head.
There are 'balloon' mollies, and now a similar thing with bettas.
Obviously, these wouldn't happen with ball pythons. I'm saying that people still peoduce those, so why do you think they wouldn't make more of a genetic deformity, even if it survives?

Something everyone needs to understand and consider is that in the grand scheme of things the ball python breeding industry is still in its infancy. There are going to be genetic issues with what we do. To say we shouldnt work with certain morohs because of risks is stupid. Instead of taking that stance how bout working with them to try and eliminate such issues or get a better understanding of the issues. Alot of things genetically can be washed out over time with selective breeding. This has been done in dog breeding and in other animal breeding. Genetic flaws are in all living creatures. Its not species specific to ball pythons. Look at the amount of morphs that are solid without issues. The percentages are good. And back to the price tag thing. You can be as politically correct as you want but if there was no market then there would be no industry. This industry was not built on the hobbyist. It was built on buisness. Without it there would have never been all these morphs to work with. Without a market their would never have been a nerd, ralph davis, tsk, bhb, kahl, sharp, outback, etc etc etc. It costs money to do what has been done therefore there is the market to support it. We also have to look at the evolution of these morphs we see today. If we didnt have morphs on this poll we would not have the combos we have today. If you want to work with the most complete gene in ball pythons youd be breeding normals.

People definitely don't have to breed the morphs with problems for business. The spider gene is one of the cheapest right now, since so many people started breeding them.
There are still hundreds of combos that don't have problems. Someone correct this if it's incorrect, but none of these morphs have problems, or their combinations:
piebald, albino, OG, any line of pastel, pin, het. blue eye leucistic complex, black eye leucistic complex, 8 ball complex, any axanthic line, ivory, superstripe, puma, highway, calico/sugar......

The list is ectremely long, without the added problematic morphs. Try combining 3 of those, much less 4+ genes. The problem-free combinations are practically endless.

By the way, I encourage people who are impassioned over this to do exactly that--breed normals selectively, to produce better color and pattern, great temperaments, and excellent, non-picky feeding.

It's a project I have planned for the future, when I have the space and money for it. It will benefit everyone in the long run, if folks begin to do this.

That is a good idea. It's pretty much what I'm trying to do with my morphs, so the normals coming from my projects will be to that description.

[DooLittle]

DrDooLittle, even if your bee doesn't have problems, they have the potential to, and also the potential to have offspring that do.

Eclipse Exotics, I was talking about worse problems that could potentially come up in the future. Not lethal, but worse than spider.

Snake Lab, I have only (from what I know) species without even potential problems or defects. Ball pythons, a few colubrids, leopard gecko morphs, African fat tails, crested geckos, bearded dragons, and a few species of boas.

Meanwhile, she is living proof that wobble can be bred down, and that they can live happy healthy lifes....

[snake lab]

Your bringing up examples in everything from gold fish to torts in a ball python discussion. I dont know man i cant argue with that knowledge. Look my point about money is simple. If you didnt have a market you would not have most of the morphs you call problem free. The pastel was the first codom morph that blew up the industry then came the spider. If you think for a second that the industry wasnt boosted forward by the spider then your crazy. Noone would have come out with or worked with the animals or imported the animals we have today if it wasnt about money. Thats my point. Do i think its good to breed and sell an animal that is unhealthy? No absolutely not. But these genetic flaws and general health are 2 different things.

[Genetics Breeder]

Meanwhile, she is living proof that wobble can be bred down, and that they can live happy healthy lifes....

Actually, you have NO proof. From what I've heard, it's mor of a luck of the draw. It can get better or worse with age. You even said that yours had it after you got it, proving this.

You are also EXTREMELY underestimating the power and potential of animals' brains. There are multiple factors being affected in the brain to cause the spider problems. You can't just 'breed down' an animal with neurological affects, without expecting it to also affect something you didn't think could happen.
You can't breed animals into specific brain functions. It's not that simple. You can't breed a ball python to learn how to go through a maze. Brain function is too delicate and intricate.

[Serpent_Nirvana]

Thats what I'm really not wanting to happen. People have told me that the animal isn't in pain, it's only the minority, and a few other reasons that I should get one. I was considering getting a spider, until I re-thought what I just wrote above. Then, I decided to NEVER get anything that alters more than color and pattern.

That's not my guess, it's not a philosophy, it's something happening right now. People letting one thing slip is setting off a chain of events and negative choices in the future.

I'm fairly sure I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree that that's what's going to happen.

If I understand your train of thought correctly, then you're worried that, while the spider itself may not be the biggest ethical concern in the world, allowing ourselves to accept the spider morph's neurologic "quirks" as acceptable creates a slippery slope towards accepting everything that survives and can breed, no matter how egregious the defect. The widespread acceptance of a morph that is commonly associated with a minor intention tremor and/or head-tilt may make us complacent and willing to accept much more severe impairments, such as severe and consistent ataxia. You think that we may eventually justify everything under the banner of "it eats and breeds; it must be okay," even if it spends its whole life upside-down.

I guess I just don't see that happening. While I can appreciate the desire to avoid any and all potential for non-pigment-related defects if only for the sole, philosophical desire to avoid them, I don't believe that the spider is paving the way for a hobby full of twisted, defective snakes. I believe that the majority of people have a pretty strong negative reaction to the "train-wreck" spiders when they see them (a fact that makes me hopeful that they are, indeed, quite rare). I feel as though if a morph came along that was pretty consistently a "train wreck," people would avoid it like the plague, no matter how pretty it was and how readily it ate. We all do this for purely aesthetic purposes; a snake with profoundly messed-up movements just isn't aesthetically pleasing.

I can see what you're saying, and I agree completely that we have to be vigilant ... However, I don't believe that means that we have to immediately and completely discard a gene because of any associated genetic problem. I can appreciate the desire to think in absolutes, but I don't think that it is that black and white. Honestly, were we to do that, I do believe we'd run out of morphs rather quickly. Off the top of my head, I can think of only a handful that I can't link with some suspected defect of some kind or another. (Not everything made the poll by a long shot ...)

[Serpent_Nirvana]

There are still hundreds of combos that don't have problems. Someone correct this if it's incorrect, but none of these morphs have problems, or their combinations:

Piebald -- Historically poor eaters (AFAIK, this has largely been eliminated through careful and selective outcrossing); possible immunosuppression (I don't know that I believe it, but it's been suggested in some case reports)

Albino -- I have read a few accounts suggesting that albino x albino pairings may result in genetic defects (anophthalmia, jaw deformities). I don't know quite why, from a genetic standpoint, that this should be the case, but I've read enough to suggest that it may be more than just hearsay.

Het. blue eye leucistic complex -- Nothing with the hets, but since homozygotes may have ophthalmic issues, from a purest standpoint, propagation of these should likely be avoided.

8 ball complex -- Homozygotes have a propensity towards kinking and mild jaw deformities ("duckbill")

The list is ectremely long, without the added problematic morphs. Try combining 3 of those, much less 4+ genes. The problem-free combinations are practically endless.

The other problem is that some problems pop up in combinations of morphs that are unseen in the single-gene heterozygotes. The champagne, for example, seems to do fine on its own (AFAIK), but fails to thrive when combined with certain genes such as sable and spider. Does this mean that we should cease production of a morph as soon as any defect is discovered, even if it's only in a combination or heterozygous form?

That is why, much as it's tempting to, I don't believe that I can think of this issue in such a black and white fashion.

This statement:

You can't breed animals into specific brain functions. It's not that simple. You can't breed a ball python to learn how to go through a maze. Brain function is too delicate and intricate.

Doesn't make any sense. (No offense.) Of course you can breed for specific "brain functions" (eg, behaviors). Look at dogs: some are bred for herding, some for guarding, some for retrieving, etc., etc.. You are even contradicting yourself, as you are proposing to select for behavioral traits in your ball pythons such as good appetite and lack of stress in captivity.

You can't just 'breed down' an animal with neurological affects, without expecting it to also affect something you didn't think could happen.

If you're arguing that all selective breeding carries with it inherent risks, then you're right ... But then you would be arguing against all selective breeding, for any purpose, and that's just a shame IMO. (A very popular argument with certain groups for whom I hold no affinity, but not a belief that I subscribe to.)

[DooLittle]

Actually, you have NO proof. From what I've heard, it's mor of a luck of the draw. It can get better or worse with age. You even said that yours had it after you got it, proving this.

You are also EXTREMELY underestimating the power and potential of animals' brains. There are multiple factors being affected in the brain to cause the spider problems. You can't just 'breed down' an animal with neurological affects, without expecting it to also affect something you didn't think could happen.
You can't breed animals into specific brain functions. It's not that simple. You can't breed a ball python to learn how to go through a maze. Brain function is too delicate and intricate.

My point is that she is alive and well, that is proof enough for me, to not avoid them. No wobble in over a year, very minimal when she first transitioned to our home. So does she have it, yes. But so minimal that it hasn't again been seen. It also doesn't affect her life AT ALL. So why would you avoid that? I have seen only a handful of "trainwreck" spiders and that has been on you tube. How many thousands of them have been hatched that are just fine? There are dog breeds with problems that are more prone to certain breeds, yet they still breed and are happy healthy animals.

[WingedWolfPsion]

I don't understand the logic behind demanding that people give up morphs that have secondary physical characteristics that are unusual or make people uneasy, due to the CHANCE that in the future, some OTHER morph might be bred that has serious problems.

Can you explain...well...why we should? Would I really need to avoid breeding dogs with shorter muzzles, like St Bernards, just because someone, one day, might breed an English Bulldog? It doesn't make sense to me.

Just like calling the super-cinnamon duckbilling a 'jaw deformity'....it is an alteration in their appearance, but it's no more a deformity than the extra vertebrae in a greyhound, or semi-floppy ears on a terrier. It doesn't interfere with their ability to function normally, at all.

I consider spiders and womas to be the 'fainting goats' of the ball python world. They have a neurological abnormality, but it's not detrimental to them in a captive situation, because the mutation that creates it makes them desirable to us, so we propagate them. That makes it a positive mutation for them. Evolution cares only about whose genes are passed on. Spider ball pythons are successful in evolutionary terms, because WE like them, and care for them.

If there is no real evidence that the animal's quality of life is impeded, then it's fine. That's my stance.

[Genetics Breeder]

I wasn't saying only neurological disorders, that is why I used the goldfish as an example. Someone looking at a koi 2 hundred years ago would be shocked (and probably disgusted) to see the pop-eye or pop-cheek goldfish.
Like people on here are saying, they don't think that ball pythons would be propagated if they had problems more extreme than that. I think it will happen, sometime, even if it's many decades from now.
That's why I was using fish as an example. They have been around hundreds of years. It's almost like seeing what the future will be for ball pythons, since both are very popular pets.
There ARE people out there, whether people on this forum would or wouldn't, that WOULD create extreme mutant animals.
There are scaleless snakes, furless rodents, rodents with abnormally large ears, so why don't you think it will happen to ball pythons?
I know that I wouldn't want to see ball pythons being bred for weird body shapes. It might be that they are not as prolific breeders that they don't already have weird shapes being bred.

[Genetics Breeder]

Tattooing, injecting, or dying animals with colored dyes don't affect how they function, either. Like someone above said, what I'm saying is that just because it eats, grows, and breeds, doesn't mean it should be bred.