Re: Central Chinese Dion's Rat

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Rat Snake Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Walt Deptula on August 04, 2000 at 11:02:22:

In Reply to: Re: Central Chinese Dion's Rat posted by Patrick Alexander on August 04, 2000 at 10:42:31:

:
: : It says right in sentence two of my post "IN NATURE".

: My point being that these snakes aren't "IN NATURE". These snakes are living in little cages in some dude's house. Yes, a normally colored snake is better suited to its environment when it is in the wild. But a normally colored snake is *not* better suited to its environment when it is in captivity. And since we're talking about snakes in captivity...

: : Secondly, amelanism by it's very nature creates a genetically inferior animal. It is missing melanin, which a normal animal would possess. By definition therefore, a "normal" animal is genetically superior.

: By what definition? You've gotta put forth some kind of solid definition of what exactly you're taking "genetically superior" to mean before you claim things to be true by that definition.

: : That would be the "for what".

: No, actually you haven't addressed that.

: : In many species of animals amelanism is a trait for example, that renders said animal more sensitive to light. This is a genetic weakness associated with the trait. There may well be others.

: Again- An increased sensitivity to light may be a weakness in the wild. It is not so in captivity. These snakes are in captivity, so it is not a weakness for them.

: Patrick Alexander

Wrong again. An increased sensitivity to light exists whether or not the animal is in the wild or captivity. When I originally penned "in nature", I was discussing the animals existence in the wild, not in captivity. Evidently failing to comprehend this, you responded by discussing the captivity issue. Try reading and comprehending the material first before replying in such irrelevent fashion.

Walt

Follow Ups:

Re: Central Chinese Dion's Rat Patrick Alexander 08/04/00 (0)
Re: Central Chinese Dion's Rat KJ 08/04/00 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
: : : : : : It says right in sentence two of my post "IN NATURE". : : My point being that these snakes aren't "IN NATURE". These snakes are living in little cages in some dude's house. Yes, a normally colored snake is better suited to its environment when it is in the wild. But a normally colored snake is *not* better suited to its environment when it is in captivity. And since we're talking about snakes in captivity... : : : Secondly, amelanism by it's very nature creates a genetically inferior animal. It is missing melanin, which a normal animal would possess. By definition therefore, a "normal" animal is genetically superior. : : By what definition? You've gotta put forth some kind of solid definition of what exactly you're taking "genetically superior" to mean before you claim things to be true by that definition. : : : That would be the "for what". : : No, actually you haven't addressed that. : : : In many species of animals amelanism is a trait for example, that renders said animal more sensitive to light. This is a genetic weakness associated with the trait. There may well be others. : : Again- An increased sensitivity to light may be a weakness in the wild. It is not so in captivity. These snakes are in captivity, so it is not a weakness for them. : : Patrick Alexander : Wrong again. An increased sensitivity to light exists whether or not the animal is in the wild or captivity. When I originally penned "in nature", I was discussing the animals existence in the wild, not in captivity. Evidently failing to comprehend this, you responded by discussing the captivity issue. Try reading and comprehending the material first before replying in such irrelevent fashion. : Walt

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Rat Snake Forum ] [ FAQ ]