Originally Posted by angllady2
While I do not agree that it would be "irresponsible" to allow these animals to live in this instance, I also have to take exception to your use of the word "low-life" to describe someone who would cull (HUMANELY -- not by sticking it in a freezer) a baby snake with a deformity.
We don't know what it's like for a snake to grow up without one of its major sense organs. We also don't know for sure whether a given deformity is genetic or not, and as much as anyone may try to find a good, permanent home for their animals, we all know how many times these guys can change hands in their lifetimes. I don't think it is at all unreasonable or unethical to humanely cull deformed offspring rather than risk their dissemination into the gene pool.
IMO, this is a very personal decision for the breeder and I don't believe they should ostracized or called names for EITHER choice. I'm sure it isn't easy to decide to euthanize a newborn clutch.
All that having been said -- in this instance, I would suspect (though can't say for sure) that it is likely due to an incubation fault rather than genetics. The reason for this is that you say that the parents are unrelated, have all bred for you before without producing deformities, and that both (unrelated) clutches are affected.
Since they're the same morph (Piebald), I think it is possible that they are actually all distantly related and all carry the gene for eyelessness. I think if this were my clutch, I would plan on repeating this pairing next year to see what happens. This may sound counter-intuitive, but if you don't do this you will never know for sure and you risk either A. retiring valuable breeders needlessly or B. disseminating a defect gene into the gene pool. If, out of several eggs, you get any eyeless babies a second time around, I would retire all three parents from breeding. If not, I would suspect this to be an incubation fluke.
Best of luck with your baby snakes.
Reply With Quote