Quote Originally Posted by Gio View Post
"so i guess to what extent is this true among snake species? and, further, is “accentuating nature” i.e. producing natural rarities the same as “preserving nature” i.e. preserving the natural/normal beauty of nature?"

Anomalies in nature like albinism, patternless and whatever else typically equate to failures when compared to the "norm" within their species. Millions of years of evolution allowed animals to change and adapt to succeed.

"Producing natural rarities" in this sense, is producing animals that would more than likely struggle or fail in nature so it isn't preserving "the natural/normal beauty of nature".

It is actually producing unnatural/abnormal animals. Beauty is completely subjective in this case.

What is true among snake species is success due to adaptation.
i find this supremely interesting as well because i do think that what you have outlined is generally true but not always eg: yes, my regular albino dwarf burm would standout and be more susceptible to predation during her early stages *however* i would argue that my granite mainland Burm is even *more* adapted to camouflaging comparative to normal types - would be an interesting thing to field study ngl but to that end i think that also brings into question what i said about re-examining how we think of “captivity” insomuch as it is or can be an idyllic form of nature with special benefits eg: perfect consistent weather, no chance of predation, etc - technically you could say that’s “unnatural” but i would argue that it is and it is not

but with that said - i don’t think that characterization of albinos as being “unnatural” is something i would agree with because they are, objectively, naturally occurring they’re just not always successful - which technically, that could be said of normals too - i would argue the “unnatural” designation should apply to artificially created/line bred morphs like “scaleless anything”