Let's play evolutionary biologist.

[RWillinnable]

Two questions for those of us who are so inclined.

Why would Mother Nature endow ball pythons with asymmetrical patterning, when almost all other species strive for symmetry?

And, why have so many different genes to create all the different morphs for a single species? I honestly can not think of another single species whose coloring and patterns are so enormously variable.

[jknudson]

Two questions for those of us who are so inclined.

Why would Mother Nature endow ball pythons with asymmetrical patterning, when almost all other species strive for symmetry?

And, why have so many different genes to create all the different morphs for a single species? I honestly can not think of another single species whose coloring and patterns are so enormously variable.

It's called evolution....the pattern on most animals isn't because of the strive to become symmetrical, but for survival, camoflauge.

And the genetics for the different morphs is all based on mutations...random occurances with DNA...Ball Pythons aren't the only species with different coloring and variable appearance...what about homo sapiens? We are all the same species yet so different in appearance.

[Adam_Wysocki]

Why would Mother Nature endow ball pythons with asymmetrical patterning, when almost all other species strive for symmetry?

Really? Zebras, Tigers, Cheetas, Human Fingerprints (I could go on and on and on) all have patterns that are asymmetric.

And, why have so many different genes to create all the different morphs for a single species? I honestly can not think of another single species whose coloring and patterns are so enormously variable.

High population density low geographic distribution. It's a major principal of genetics. For color and pattern variability, take a look at seahorses and many types of reef fish ... same idea.

-adam

[frankykeno]

I'll take "predator" for $200 Alex

I would guess that the random patterning on a ball python is related to the whole predator/prey dynamic which seems to be a major driving force for dear old Mother Nature. Take any predator for example...lions are solid colored because their environment calls for it...they are ambush hunters that blend best into the low ground cover when they are solid buff in tone...tigers often hunt from a more forested environment and are striped as that is more effective in breaking up their pattern against higher bush/trees. I would assume then that ball pythons developed with their more scattered random patterning because that's what helped them survive being prey a lot of the time and allowed them to succeed as a predator over the history of their species.

As far as the morph genetics, look to dogs. All came from a wolf/wild dog type background but we have through human intervention and selective breeding produced both the chihuahua and the Great Dane. Given a chance to go "wild" again and randomly interbreed we'd likely end up with a mid-sized brownish dog much like the remaining naturally occurring wild dogs of the world who surprisingly all look very similar even if they are continents apart. Wild dogs are the "normals", Great Danes are the "morphs" (very simplistic way of dealing with a more evolved creature but makes sense to my non-biologist trained mind lol)



~~Jo~~

[RWillinnable]

Thanks adam and Jo. I like the Great Dane analogy Jo. Although, I am not sure I understand what Adam is talking about with population concentration. Wouldn't concentrating a population create sameness?

[Adam_Wysocki]

Wouldn't concentrating a population create sameness?

Absolutely not. It spawns mutations ... Genetics 101.

-adam

[lurch]

I'm just trying to imagine how a chihuahua and a great dane would get it on.

[frankykeno]

Hmm genetics gives me a brain ache in the morning LOL. From what I can gather and remember (there is a ton of genetics research online btw so have fun folks LOL)...

In any natural population heterozygosity is genetically preferred I guess you'd call it. In other words Mother Nature set it up so that we pass on genetic diversity and are not naturally the same even within a given population in a stable environment (in other words species that don't migrate distances to spread out their genetic material). When a population is affected by any number of natural or un-natural events and a population bottleneck occurs and depending on the generations this bottleneck affects and how many founding breeders are left available, then you see a sudden jump in homozygous individuals outside of the natural occurance. Once the effect is over though, from what I understand, nature reasserts and strives for balance...in other words...hetrozygosity.

When we inbreed or line breed creatures we are in effect unnaturally creating a genetic bottleneck to hopefully get a desired effect (my take on it and decided simplified). Even with a population of wild BP's a naturally occuring male morph for instance is going to have available to breed a higher percentage "normal" females who may or may not carry any "special" genes compared to a female of his specific morph right? Mother Nature at work again to keep the population well stocked with various genes so that each individual in that natural population is unique genetically.

Zebra's are an excellent example...big herd creatures....all are striped but not one zebra stripe pattern ever matches another no matter how closely they breed. In fact if you watch a zebra mare give birth she will circle her newly born young constantly. The belief is she is visually imprinting her particular pattern on her young so that at any time it can pick her out of a herd of milling almost, but not, identical zebras as the sense of smell would be lost in the dust storm of flying hooves.

So I think what Adam was saying is that a high population density, low geographic distribution species like BP's, nature has long ago mapped out a plan to make sure they are geneticially diverse. Unless something drastically affects this stablized population in a sudden occurrence....nature will just tick along following the plan, favoring diversity, occasionally popping up an interesting morph or two....just like it's always done. Depending on how much concentration of the genetics occurs I would think affects the morphs produced but I believe in the end nature will strive to balance it back out if left it's own devices.

Mother Nature is no dumb broad LOL.

~~Jo~~

[Adam_Wysocki]

So I think what Adam was saying is that a high population density, low geographic distribution species like BP's, nature has long ago mapped out a plan to make sure they are geneticially diverse.

Nope, not it.

Many animals all breeding with the same genetic material spawns random genetic variations. The genetics books cover this stuff. The greater the population density and smaller the geographic area, the better the chances for natural mutants. Mutants aren't created as something "genetically diverse" ... they are of the same genetic material as all of the other animals in the area ... mutants are natures way of "trying new things", maybe as a way to further enhance the survival of the species ... Darwin type stuff.

It's kind of like the movie "The People Under the Stairs".

-adam

[frankykeno]

Okay what am I missing here? Aren't we saying the same thing but just with different words?

What I was trying to express (and granted I need more coffee) is that morphs naturally occur in the given population though the greater number of individuals in that population will be genetically more diverse. Until you affect that population by reducing the number or type of breeders available it will naturally produce some morphs (mutants) but always more of the "normal" right? Though each normal is of course absolutely unique itself.

Isn't it until you concentrate that population through natural or unnatural events that you see a swing towards more morphs occurring? If you are using a high population model there should always be a tendency towards less visible morphs and more normal/hets shouldn't there be?


~~Jo~~