 | mobile - desktop |
|
| mobile - desktop |
|
 |
 Contact Sales! |
News & Events:
|
Posted by Patrick Alexander on August 04, 2000 at 00:23:06:
In Reply to: Re: Central Chinese Dion's Rat posted by Walt Deptula on August 03, 2000 at 00:44:58:
: A CB normal "wild state" animal differs from its amelanistic cousin in that it is a reproduction of a genetically superior animal while the amelanistic form is a reproduction of a fortunate genetically inferior survivor. You cited an example of a genetically harmful mutation with no head, well how does this differ in nature from an amelanistic form which would clearly be a potentially harmful form to any unfortunate offspring of the original genetic keyholder. Albinos don't generally fare much better in the wild than would a "harmful" trait carrier.
A normally colored animal is gentically superior? Superior for *what*? Yes, an amelanistic snake is going to have difficulty surviving in the wild, but, then again, I haven't heard of anyone trying to produce amelanistic snakes in order to release them into the wild. What would happen to a snake in the wild is totally irrelevant if the snake remains in captivity, and if "genetically superior" means only "more likely to have viable offspring who will do well", then it seems well documented that amelanistic snakes in captivity are genetically superior, for the simple reason that if a snake is amelanistic people will be more likely to breed it, and hence, it is more likely to have offspring, who in turn will be more likely to breed.
Now, if we were talking about aesthetics, there seems no question to me but that amelanistic snakes are vastly inferior. And if we're dealing with what's most conducive to the continuation of herping as an enjoyable hobby, again, I think that amelanistic snakes are inferior.
: One could argue that an amelanistic animal is a harmful gene carrier.
Not when that snake is in captivity, one couldn't.
Patrick Alexander
