Wild Morphs

[Gio]

@Gio, just to clarify I was just giving input to the general topic under discussion, not attempting to contradict you or anyone.

If anything, this is the idea I was working with: "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 "

You're right about the semantics issue. 'Normal' can refer to statistical likelihood, or to a genetic allele ('normal' vs 'albino'), but in the morph vs wildtype discussions, especially when the negative 'abnormal' is used, it usually has an evaluative aspect that is essential to the argument being made. Heck, the word 'normative' means 'evaluative' or 'prescriptive'. 'Normal' is a messy term, and I should have avoided it.

"From an evolutionary standpoint, the strongest, best equipped are the survivors." Well, sort of; it has nothing essential to do with strength or equipment (unless these terms are used very broadly), it has to do only with reproductive success. The 'best equipped' in the current captive environment are the morph animals. Being a morph animal makes it much more likely (in the BP case anyway; other species have different adaptive pressures) that the animal will successfully reproduce since hardly anyone breeds 'wild-type'. 'Wild-type' isn't adaptive in captivity, relative to most morphs. Relative success at passing on genes is evolutionary fitness.

My point was largely about the fact that evolutionary pressures go on in captivity, too, and at a far greater speed and with much easier-to-see outcomes. Conservation/zoo breeding discussions and academic discussions understand that evolutionary pressures are caused by human intervention, both intentional and inadvertent, both direct and indirect, both in the wild and in captive populations and in populations that don't fit either of those categories very cleanly, but don't necessarily make the strong sort of 'natural vs unnatural' distinction that crops up in casual discussions like those among herp keepers.

A readable book on some of these deeper topics of adaptation is Dawkin's 'The Selfish Gene', which unrelatedly but somewhat amusingly coined the term 'meme'.

Cool discussion, at any rate.

No worries.

I figured "normal" was the hangup.

When it comes right down to it, there is very little that is normal or natural when it comes to captive breeding.

Even when breeding "normal" or typical wild type patterns the breeder selects the pair. It is all selective breeding once humans step in.

Preservation is another part of the conversation.

In order to "preserve" a snake species, let's use a scenario based on the possible excitation of the animal that we are wanting to preserve.

If you are truly wanting to preserve the animals and reintroduce them back into the wild, you would try to produce animals that would thrive in their environment.

That shouldn't include breeding mutations that would have an immediate disadvantage because of morph like traits. There are reasons snakes and other animals look like they do.

Successful reproduction in the wild requires both male and female to be able to survive and gain the strength required to find a mate and to copulate (strongest/best equipped). In some species of snake, literal size and strength play a significant role as male combat outcomes decide which animals will mate.

If you are basing success of a species in the wild solely on reproduction, you are missing everything it takes to get to that point. A starving snake isn't going to make it to a position to be reproductive, nor is a snake that can't hide from predators. Reproduction may be the end goal, but survival is paramount as without it, there is no reproduction. It is the circle of life, but in order to complete the circle other factors come into play.




You could also look at preservation another way. To "preserve" a trait that pops up in nature very rarely. It all depends on what you are looking to preserve.

See what I'm getting at?

I just looked at the question from the position of the further preservation of the species and being able to reintroduce the animals back into the wild.