Inbreeding

***GROUP HUG!!***

LOL, only kidding.

Actually, I'd rather do the Group, go to the bar for beers, hug!

If you dont like it, dont buy it.

No where have I seen anyone pushing this new morph.

Jim.

Originally Posted by KelliH

I never said 100% that I believe it's ok to breed and produce scaleless beardies. I said that as long as they thrive in captivity there is no reason why they should not be. Thus far I have seen no evidence that they do not do fine under captive conditions, if evidence is presented that they do not do well, then I would agree with you that they should not be bred.

Which should really be the focal point of the discussions about the mutation. When i got to the other thread, it was already six pages (Er... I set it to the maximum for posts per page) long and already full of the same kind of back and forth accusations and general failure to differentiate between BOI topics and discussion forum topics that will lead to this thread also being locked. So I didn't add anything.

Offhand I'd call it a negative mutation that would lead to a lower quality of life though. I'm basing this on a few things- many of which are going to be assumptions- evidenced assumptions, but assumptions nonetheless.

Reptile scales have evolved along with the animal to fill a few biological advantages. The obvious one of protecting the animal's skin from harm is much less of an issue in a captive population that will never... ever... see anything but captivity and with human control over their environment. The questions about tears during breeding were valid and went unanswered though- beardies, along with any number of other species, can break skin during the course of breeding when the female has *normal* protective scalation; it seems logical to assume that risk goes up when the scales aren't present. Above and beyond that though, scales are important physiologically, foremost in my mind would be their role in moisture repulsion and retention, especially in a desert species like the vitticeps. I'd have a lot of questions about the ability of the animal to stay properly hydrated in a heated enclosure... and the ability of the scaleless animal to have a proper immune response against bacterial and fungal dermatitis if they're kept in an environment that's more humid (and high humidity isn't usually great for the resiratory system of a low humidity species). UV use and damage is a concern as well, they're a species which is particularly noted for their UVB requirements to maintain proper vitamin D synthesis and absorbtion, however UVB can also do considerable damage to tissue that isn't supposed to be hit by light. Is it even possible to maintain a balance between all the conditions a bearded dragon's body needs and has adapted to utilize... and the gimped requirements that a handicap like scalelessness would force? On paper, it's looking unlikely at best, impossible at worst.

I'd also have a lot of concerns about shedding. The scaleless mutation exists in a few snake species and they are known to be very, very prone to shedding issues. While rubbing, they'll sometimes tear additional layers of skin... since there is no additional layer scale beneath the one that's being sloughed. Also they will frequently "doughnut" where the shed will roll back on itself rather than turning inside out or tearing. This will sometimes end up constricting around the center of a scaleless snake, potentially causing injury if it's not *immediately* seen and dealt with. While the midbody sheds of a beardy aren't likely to have the same issues due to the shape, I'd worry a great deal about the limbs and digits.

Given that all logic would suggest a lower quality of life, my personal response would have been immediate euthanasia, a halt to all projects that could potentially reproduce the defective mutations and a massive warning issued through all avaliable sources that this negative outcome was possible... If euthanasia was an unswallowable option, then the initial animals displaying the deformity should have been kept virginal and observed for an extended period of time to determine just how signifigant an impact it had on the quality of life for the animals afflicted- and that should have been a period equal to the full natural life span of all avaliable specimins before any efforts were undertaken to duplicate the trait. That is to say that the quality is so obviously a negative one that proof should have to be provided that it does *not* result in numerous problems and difficulties, rather than a demand for proof that it does.

Matter of perspective I guess. Some people feel ethically obligated to actively attempt to improve a captive population through their breeding efforts and some people wouldn't know what morals were if they came up and bit them in the face. That (hopefully obviously) isn't so much directed at you Kelli, I know you're as upstanding as they come- but when one is aware of the issues that scaleless snakes have and adds in the extra attention to certain captive conditions that are demanded by a beardie's pysiological needs, I don't see how anyone can possibly come to a conclusion that this mutation is anything but negative and damaging.

Originally Posted by Seamus Haley

Which should really be the focal point of the discussions about the mutation. When i got to the other thread, it was already six pages (Er... I set it to the maximum for posts per page) long and already full of the same kind of back and forth accusations and general failure to differentiate between BOI topics and discussion forum topics that will lead to this thread also being locked. So I didn't add anything.

Offhand I'd call it a negative mutation that would lead to a lower quality of life though. I'm basing this on a few things- many of which are going to be assumptions- evidenced assumptions, but assumptions nonetheless.

Reptile scales have evolved along with the animal to fill a few biological advantages. The obvious one of protecting the animal's skin from harm is much less of an issue in a captive population that will never... ever... see anything but captivity and with human control over their environment. The questions about tears during breeding were valid and went unanswered though- beardies, along with any number of other species, can break skin during the course of breeding when the female has *normal* protective scalation; it seems logical to assume that risk goes up when the scales aren't present. Above and beyond that though, scales are important physiologically, foremost in my mind would be their role in moisture repulsion and retention, especially in a desert species like the vitticeps. I'd have a lot of questions about the ability of the animal to stay properly hydrated in a heated enclosure... and the ability of the scaleless animal to have a proper immune response against bacterial and fungal dermatitis if they're kept in an environment that's more humid (and high humidity isn't usually great for the resiratory system of a low humidity species). UV use and damage is a concern as well, they're a species which is particularly noted for their UVB requirements to maintain proper vitamin D synthesis and absorbtion, however UVB can also do considerable damage to tissue that isn't supposed to be hit by light. Is it even possible to maintain a balance between all the conditions a bearded dragon's body needs and has adapted to utilize... and the gimped requirements that a handicap like scalelessness would force? On paper, it's looking unlikely at best, impossible at worst.

I'd also have a lot of concerns about shedding. The scaleless mutation exists in a few snake species and they are known to be very, very prone to shedding issues. While rubbing, they'll sometimes tear additional layers of skin... since there is no additional layer scale beneath the one that's being sloughed. Also they will frequently "doughnut" where the shed will roll back on itself rather than turning inside out or tearing. This will sometimes end up constricting around the center of a scaleless snake, potentially causing injury if it's not *immediately* seen and dealt with. While the midbody sheds of a beardy aren't likely to have the same issues due to the shape, I'd worry a great deal about the limbs and digits.

Given that all logic would suggest a lower quality of life, my personal response would have been immediate euthanasia, a halt to all projects that could potentially reproduce the defective mutations and a massive warning issued through all avaliable sources that this negative outcome was possible... If euthanasia was an unswallowable option, then the initial animals displaying the deformity should have been kept virginal and observed for an extended period of time to determine just how signifigant an impact it had on the quality of life for the animals afflicted- and that should have been a period equal to the full natural life span of all avaliable specimins before any efforts were undertaken to duplicate the trait. That is to say that the quality is so obviously a negative one that proof should have to be provided that it does *not* result in numerous problems and difficulties, rather than a demand for proof that it does.

Matter of perspective I guess. Some people feel ethically obligated to actively attempt to improve a captive population through their breeding efforts and some people wouldn't know what morals were if they came up and bit them in the face. That (hopefully obviously) isn't so much directed at you Kelli, I know you're as upstanding as they come- but when one is aware of the issues that scaleless snakes have and adds in the extra attention to certain captive conditions that are demanded by a beardie's pysiological needs, I don't see how anyone can possibly come to a conclusion that this mutation is anything but negative and damaging.

Great, great post.
A while back on this site, there was a furor over a turtle ad that showed an eyeless turtle. I didn't follow the whole thread, but it appeared that someone was specifically breeding them that way, and profiting from the sale of what was obviously a genetically inferior animal.
This is no different, at least not to me. In most morphs, and it really doesn't matter with species of reptile you're talking about, even while you may be breeding to enhance a certain trait, the actual animals health is a critical factor when determining your crosses.
Its also true what Kelli said about animals in the wild not being overly choosy about who they mate with. That's the great thing about natural selection. An animal in the wild that is born or hatched with undesirable genetic traits normally doesn't survive long enough to continue the mutation.
The question for this industry, like any other, is how far is to far? In any industry that is self policing, its the reaction from the community that acts as a natural protection for for the animals themselves.
There is a lot of truth to the statement that most of us that have owned and worked with reptiles for any length of time do so not only because we love them, but also because we have a fascination for the genetics involved.
My issue with this since the beginning has been with the fact that this specific mutation has altered the way the animal processes keratin, which is pretty vital to ANY reptile. In the case of skin breaks, reptiles (and birds for that matter) are already slow healers and are prone to all sorts of problems when even normal skin breaks occur. Take away the layers of scale that protect them and the animal is at risk for even worse problems.
The thing that I find promising is that it doesn't matter what forum you go to right now where beardies are discussed, this is not a very popular development. Its not as simple as Jim's statement "if you don't like it, don't buy it", because the people who love this animal are speaking out right now to defend it.

Originally Posted by Seamus Haley

Which should really be the focal point of the discussions about the mutation. When i got to the other thread, it was already six pages (Er... I set it to the maximum for posts per page) long and already full of the same kind of back and forth accusations and general failure to differentiate between BOI topics and discussion forum topics that will lead to this thread also being locked. So I didn't add anything.

Offhand I'd call it a negative mutation that would lead to a lower quality of life though. I'm basing this on a few things- many of which are going to be assumptions- evidenced assumptions, but assumptions nonetheless.

Reptile scales have evolved along with the animal to fill a few biological advantages. The obvious one of protecting the animal's skin from harm is much less of an issue in a captive population that will never... ever... see anything but captivity and with human control over their environment. The questions about tears during breeding were valid and went unanswered though- beardies, along with any number of other species, can break skin during the course of breeding when the female has *normal* protective scalation; it seems logical to assume that risk goes up when the scales aren't present. Above and beyond that though, scales are important physiologically, foremost in my mind would be their role in moisture repulsion and retention, especially in a desert species like the vitticeps. I'd have a lot of questions about the ability of the animal to stay properly hydrated in a heated enclosure... and the ability of the scaleless animal to have a proper immune response against bacterial and fungal dermatitis if they're kept in an environment that's more humid (and high humidity isn't usually great for the resiratory system of a low humidity species). UV use and damage is a concern as well, they're a species which is particularly noted for their UVB requirements to maintain proper vitamin D synthesis and absorbtion, however UVB can also do considerable damage to tissue that isn't supposed to be hit by light. Is it even possible to maintain a balance between all the conditions a bearded dragon's body needs and has adapted to utilize... and the gimped requirements that a handicap like scalelessness would force? On paper, it's looking unlikely at best, impossible at worst.

I'd also have a lot of concerns about shedding. The scaleless mutation exists in a few snake species and they are known to be very, very prone to shedding issues. While rubbing, they'll sometimes tear additional layers of skin... since there is no additional layer scale beneath the one that's being sloughed. Also they will frequently "doughnut" where the shed will roll back on itself rather than turning inside out or tearing. This will sometimes end up constricting around the center of a scaleless snake, potentially causing injury if it's not *immediately* seen and dealt with. While the midbody sheds of a beardy aren't likely to have the same issues due to the shape, I'd worry a great deal about the limbs and digits.

Given that all logic would suggest a lower quality of life, my personal response would have been immediate euthanasia, a halt to all projects that could potentially reproduce the defective mutations and a massive warning issued through all avaliable sources that this negative outcome was possible... If euthanasia was an unswallowable option, then the initial animals displaying the deformity should have been kept virginal and observed for an extended period of time to determine just how signifigant an impact it had on the quality of life for the animals afflicted- and that should have been a period equal to the full natural life span of all avaliable specimins before any efforts were undertaken to duplicate the trait. That is to say that the quality is so obviously a negative one that proof should have to be provided that it does *not* result in numerous problems and difficulties, rather than a demand for proof that it does.

Matter of perspective I guess. Some people feel ethically obligated to actively attempt to improve a captive population through their breeding efforts and some people wouldn't know what morals were if they came up and bit them in the face. That (hopefully obviously) isn't so much directed at you Kelli, I know you're as upstanding as they come- but when one is aware of the issues that scaleless snakes have and adds in the extra attention to certain captive conditions that are demanded by a beardie's pysiological needs, I don't see how anyone can possibly come to a conclusion that this mutation is anything but negative and damaging.

Very good post Seamus. I agree with many aspects of your post. I wouldn’t promote many traits such as the scaleless snakes or snakes and turtles without eyes. Determining if it is a negative trait or discussing breeding for negative traits should have been the focus here.

That (hopefully obviously) isn't so much directed at you Kelli, I know you're as upstanding as they come- but when one is aware of the issues that scaleless snakes have and adds in the extra attention to certain captive conditions that are demanded by a beardie's pysiological needs, I don't see how anyone can possibly come to a conclusion that this mutation is anything but negative and damaging.

No problem, Seamus, I don't feel you are necessarily directing your post at me. In all honestly, I have never heard much about scaleless reptiles and do not know anything about them. That's why I said that I would like to know of any evidence that has been presented that they would not thrive in captivity before I made a final judgement call. Once I took the time to read the blurb on Daichu's page about the animal in question, I came to the conclusion that they were probably quite delicate and perhaps may not do well in captivity.

As far as inbreeding reptiles goes, I stand behind everything I have posted.

An animal in the wild that is born or hatched with undesirable genetic traits normally doesn't survive long enough to continue the mutation.

Absolutely correct, which is why it is rare to see an albino reptile in the wild. They are normally picked off by other animals higher on the food chain. In captivity our animals receive the best of care, they do not have to deal with things like that. If no inbreeding was ever done, think of all the beautiful morphs that would never have been reproduced in captivity? No albino corns, no axanthic ball pythons, no blizzard leopard geckos... and the list goes on. I feel that as long as breeders are responsible and take care to outcross on a regular basis, there is no problem. To state, as one poster did, that inbreeding reptiles is animal cruelty is just ridiculous.

Originally Posted by KelliH

Absolutely correct, which is why it is rare to see an albino reptile in the wild. They are normally picked off by other animals higher on the food chain. In captivity our animals receive the best of care, they do not have to deal with things like that. If no inbreeding was ever done, think of all the beautiful morphs that would never have been reproduced in captivity? No albino corns, no axanthic ball pythons, no blizzard leopard geckos... and the list goes on. I feel that as long as breeders are responsible and take care to outcross on a regular basis, there is no problem. To state, as one poster did, that inbreeding reptiles is animal cruelty is just ridiculous.

I agree. To come up with a morph a certain amount of inbreeding is needed. I dont think of it as cruel. but also theres nothing to really out breed with here and we all know that as well. So there is no way of purifying once the morph has proven as with other species.
I agree with the points on the scaleless reptiles and breeding for those traits are wrong. And I really think thats what has created the biggest controversy here. Not so much the inbreeding but the project itself. But the survival of the dragon and how it could be healthy for it.

Admittedly, I know nothing about snakes or geckos, but when inbreeding is discussed regarding snakes and gecko's is it done to lose a fundamental part of their bodies? This is a legitimate question....as I said, I know next to nothing about them. Is it done to enhance color or to give a different pattern? Does their level of care have to change?
Would you purposely inbreed to create a snake or gecko so different, that their live's would have to be different from every other snake or gecko out there?
And if you would purposely create this snake or gecko, would you feel good about selling them to a public that already provides sub-adequate care for them?