Inbreeding taking a toll on albinos?

Just because I am the curious sort . . .

"Sorry, John.... this particular animal underwent TWO surgeries to fix her "sat-on" eye!...."

I wonder why all the fuss to fix this is being undertaken if, as the original seller stated:

"It will NOT affect her breeding or eating in any way! She is about 24" long and very healthy! There's NOTHING to worry about!"


However, I don't have any doubt whatsoever that there are genetically linked deformities that are just waiting to pop out of the more commonly bred animals (ball pythons, cornsnakes, etc.), and inbreeding them in excess will undoubtedly bring those deformities to the surface quicker. I also agree with the idea that, even though the previous is true, there are still strains of albinism that have shown absolutely NONE of the types of deformites that are seen in others.

So, my blanket statement is that we probably shouldn't make blanket statements about albinistic animals per se. Instead, we ought to focus on eliminating the breeding of those animals which DO show the defect, and refrain from breeding the animals which might also be carrying the gene due to a familial tie to the affected specimens. IF, as we try to eradicate the defect through controlled breeding techniques, we find the defect popping up in other lines of albinistic animals, THEN one could make a causational relationship to the albinistic genes and the optical deformities.

Right now, all we know is that some albinos are the products of inbreeding, and many of them have eye defects. What we don't know is if the albinism is the cause or if it is the inbreeding from lines that just happen to have carried that hidden defect.

Darin,

Just curious what albino strain and what species are you referring to when you make this statement ??

"I also agree with the idea that, even though the previous is true, there are still strains of albinism that have shown absolutely NONE of the types of deformites that are seen in others."

Ive seen Kinked Albino Ball Pythons, Kinked and deformed Albino Leo's, one eyed Albino Boas, defected Albino Burmese, Albino horned frogs missing feet or arms and trust me I can add more. This is what I can think of off the top of my head.

The key word in your phrase is "shown". I have yet to see a deformed Albino Retic. Does that mean their strong Albinos ?? Heck no. Im sure youll eventually hear of them not being good breeders (fertility) or die at a young age. ALL of them ?? NO. But, just because it doesnt show it, doesnt mean its not present.

Out breeding IS the key to produce the strongest Albino's possible. To me (as countless others) know even the strongest Albino will never compare to a strong normal. Even a imported Albino that hasnt been inbreed still isnt comparable to a strong normal as far as overall health. Why ?? Nature didnt intend that species to be that color and in narture are doomed for more reasons than one.

"What we don't know is if the albinism is the cause or if it is the inbreeding from lines that just happen to have carried that hidden defect."

I disagree Albinism is the cause and with all the breedings that have taken place on the various species, it shows up. To me too much inbreeding just brings it out in a visual sense. Example: How many one eyed Anery, Hypo or striped Boas do you see ?? No their numbers are just as great (if not greater) than Albino Boas. How many defected Lab Burms do you see in comparsion to Albino's ?? How many defected Hypo Leos compared to Albinos ?? How many kinked Pastel Jungles or Ghost Ball Pythons floating around ?? Now these are produced in just about the same numbers as Albino Balls and with Pastel Jungles more so.

I cant convince you Darin and thats not my goal. Its already proven to me. Thats why with the different Ball Morphs Im working with, the Albino's have been taken the most cautious approach to insure strong lines. Dont take what Ive stated the wrong way Darin, thats not my intent, I just disagree with the statements.

I have never seen a deformed albino Kenyan sand boa. I'll admit they're relatively new (10 years) and people started outcrossing them to anerys almost as soon as they were introduced.
For the record, I have a normal Brazillian rainbow boa who was born with one eye, so it DOES happen. Maybe most people put flawed normals down but try and make a buck off of flawed morphs? Just a theory.
And, of course, eye problems don't have to be linked to an amelanistic gene. The most famous morph with an eye problem is the bug-eyed leucisitic Texas rat. I don't know if it affects their vision or not, but it's sure not normal!
Maybe we all should be inquiring how outbred a breeder's stock is when we make a purchase, especially a big investment like albino BC's. I have a few books that say inbreeding probably subtly affects fertility and life span.

Erin Benner

Joe,

Let me give you just one example that is commonly recognized by everyone in the herp industry: The cornsnake.

I breed corns, and I have NEVER seen a cornsnake detrimentally affected by albinism in ANY way. I've never seen an amel, snow, butter, or any other albinistic corn that was born with any noticeable defect of the eye, and I have never noticed them to be less hearty than any other cornsnake morph.

I have never seen a one-eyed amel, but I have seen several anerythristics and normals with one eye. I'm sure they're out there, but I've never seen an amel one. I've seen kinked amels, but never at a rate that was any different than in other morphs.

Does that prove that amelanism is a "good" gene to have floating around in other species? Not at all, but it tells me that the concept of amelanism being a "bad" gene in all reptiles is simply not 100% accurate. There is no way that a healthy amel corn is any less able to thrive than a healthy normal in captivity. Of course, in the wild, the coloration has great disadvantages, but, if I'm not mistaken, the first amelanistic corn hets were produced from an adult male amel cornsnake that was wild caught. That snake seemd to have survived his coloration "defect" just fine.

Now, let me just say that amels have been the most inbred of the morphs of other species, in my opinion, because they have been the ONLY morph in many species until very recently. So, in order to produce as many of them as they could, SOME breeders have undoubtedly inbred them over several generations. That being the case, ANY genetic defect that could be found in the population as a whole would statistically be more and more certain to come out of hiding in the amelanistic inbred animals than anywhere else. Not because of the amelanism, but because of the rampant inbreeding that brought the amelanism out in so many animals so quickly.

If amelanism is really in a cause and effect relationship with these noted deformities, whay are not more amels affected than we currently find? I mean, all amels lack melanin, because it is the genetic effect of the DNA. If deformities are genetically tied to amelanism, why aren't all amels affected? Why are the amels in the species in which (until recently) there were fewer known morphs those that are the most often affected by these deformities? Surely, if amelanism were a danger to all herps, shouldn't corns be affected as well? I, like you, am not at all meaning to be argumentative, but I just think mre evidence of an actual cause and effect relationship needs to be shown here.

There is a latin phrase with which you may be already familiar: post hoc, ergo propter hoc. It means literally, "after this, therefore, because of this." In other words, just because one genetic anomaly shows up in later proximity to another one does not mean that the first (amelanism) CAUSED the latter (the deformities). It may very well be the case that amelanism has all of these dreadful effects in herp species other than cornsnakes, but it is equally possible that the tremendous inbreeding to produce amels in those species (which has not had to take place in corns for decades) could have been the actual cause of bringing out those deformities and the fact that they were found in amels is only coincidental, being brought on by the fact that it was to obtain more amels that caused the inbreeding to take place.

That's all probably as clear as mud, but I don't know how else to put into words, what I'm trying to say. I am not refuting anything you all are saying about amelanism in herps (except for the case of corns, where I see no disadvatnges to the animals' health conditions). I am just suggesting that we make certain it is the amel gene that is the true culprit and not the breeding practices of some breeders looking for more amels too quickly. That's all.

Cant say I seen a deformed Albino Kenyan as well, but my point being that just because you dont physically see any defects doesnt exclude them from being defective (infertility, enlarged hearts, etc).

You make a excellent point in the BRB. Sometimes even a good strong breeding may throw out weak or deformed animal. Its happens. Just look at humans. It kills me to see kids with problems and I feel blessed that my kids (though a pain in the butt sometimes) are healthy and happy.

I also bred Bearded Dragons many years ago. Even to much inbreeding can cause deform babies and their not Albino's. Ask any breeder whos been breeding them for a long time (Like the Weis's, Repashy, etc).

But the point being that it seems to pop up much quicker in the Albino strains. I strongly feel its due to the fact that Albinism is a weak gene that nature didnt intend.

The best way to produce the strongest Albinos is to out breed as much as possible. And your right, this JUST shouldnt be limited to Albino's.

Hey Darin,

Dude thats fine. We can agree to disagree. I feel the proof is evident. BTW, Ive seen a heck alot of more deformed Amel. Corns than Anerys or Butters. This topic is interesting and maybe someone like Rich.Z can share his years dealing with Corn morphs here as well.

I disagree Albinism is the cause and with all the breedings that have taken place on the various species, it shows up.

Let's put it this way. Blindness can result when the unprotected eye (lack of melanin is exposed to intense bright light). That's why people protect themselves with dark shades of the "blinding effects" of white snow for example). So Joe is right when he says that an albino animal is predisposed to blindness because of his condition. He is a "weaker" individual as far as being able to handle UV radiation. An entirely different thing are when animals are born blind as a result of an inherited eye-deffect. Again, in this case it is not albinism that is the cause but the result of having used the same animals over and over again until a genetic deffect pops-up. The genetically blind animals are sold cheap, someone buys them, produces albinos and maybe only half of the litter is blind while the other half are either healthy or carriers (in Joe's example). Thus we further perpetuate and enhance the problem. That was just my concern.

Erin said it very well on page one, but I believe it may have been overlooked to some degree so I'm just going to reword it a bit...

Inbreeding, in and of itself, discounting spontaneous mutations, does not introduce anything new to the gene pool, it can't create a problem with a genetic basis when the groundwork was not there in the bloodlines to start... What it does is continually re-enforce existing traits, some of which might be very negative... with each crossing, the chances for minor traits (not simple dom/recess) that have been passed from original breedings becomes exponentially more likely to occur. Thing is, we only notice the bad stuff, an immunocompromised cycloptic dwarf snake with no hemipenes is more noticable to a breeder/owner than one with a tonge that's 1/3 longer.

Each species and each strain is therefor going to be very different when looking at the secondary potential inbreeding characteristics that possibly have a genetic basis... There are multiple potential causes for many things that we see as being identical, especially with color morphs, that are interruptable at so many points in the physiological process... Many can be totally unrelated to one another genetically and may have additional secondary traits that the breeder is initially unaware of being perpetuated and strengthened at the same time as the desireable color trait.

Since many morphs or strains of morphs are started with one or a small handful of animals collected from the same area and likely related to begin with... and there is a far greater pressure to produce offspring in an accelerated manner, morphs simply have a greater tendency to BE inbred, to have those traits, including the negative ones, re-enforced multiple times over by the time they end up for sale to the general public. Since the focus is so offspring and line breeding intensive, especially when only a single source animal exists, the potential problems crop up a lot quicker.

One other thing that was mentioned a few times reccently was the possibility of multiple mutations in a single animal (and then in a single bloodline/strain/morph) some of which might be directly linked and can't be outbred and some of which might be unrelated and could, through very careful examination and record keeping, be eliminated from the strain. That is to say... there is a possibility that Joe Shmoe strain albino tuataras have a tendency to have six legs (Good hypothetical, eh?) the cause of thelegged anomaly might be on the same alleles as the cause of the albinism and thus can't be bred out. The cause might be totally separate however, in which case animals carrying the six legged problem could, given time, be identified and removed from the breeding population.

And of course, as has been said, there are often secondary causitive reasons for some problems... adult albinos may often end up blind because of increased light sensitivity, but that would not explain the trait cropping up frequently in breedings. There are other potential causes for the problem showing up during gestation though too... Say for instance if Albinos of a certain strain of a certain species instinctively moved towards lower temperatures in their enclosure... this could affect the physical formation of the neonates, so the blindness would have a (direct) physiological cause (and only a secondary genetic one, since the instincts of the parent have a genetic basis). Again, just a pure hypothetical, I'm not actually conjecturing that this is the cause, merely pointing out that these tendencies don't *always* have a direct genetic cause or, when they do have a genetic cause, they aren't always automatically linked to the desired phenotype.

Now see there? You would think that I would have learned to just email my jumbled thoughts to Seamus and then have him post them in a logical progression of thought! That's way closer to what I intended to say about the possibilities of genetic linkage than what actually dribbled off MY keyboard!

Well said, Seamus!

Say for instance if Albinos of a certain strain of a certain species instinctively moved towards lower temperatures in their enclosure... this could affect the physical formation of the neonates, so the blindness would have a (direct) physiological cause (and only a secondary genetic one, since the instincts of the parent have a genetic basis).

Excellent point Seamus! And maybe, just maybe, if the temperature on one end of the enclosure is increased with a lamp that also provides intense light at the same time, an albino animal might probably go to the opposite end which is in fact darker (thus less hard on his retina), but at the same time cooler. Nice discussion!