What exactly are you suggesting that Rick has the possibility to do something about here? Maybe I missed it but what is the decision he is facing?
Other then not putting anymore ads up until his eyesight returns to normal...
I agree that the siblings from this clutch should not be bred to each other.
(I don't think any siblings should be paired up.) If there is already a genetic kinking defect linked with the Caramel gene why make it worse through inbreeding?
I don't think that the offspring from this clutch are any more or less likely to produce kinked Caramels than any other Bell or SK line Caramel. I do think that they should be paired up with unrelated animals though.
It is absolutely unrealistic to expect every or any breeder with any other line of Caramel other than Mailsin line to keep or cull all of their Caramels. I am curious to know if the Mailsin line Caramel is compatible with the others, and also skeptical about that line actually being "kink free." Then again, I do not have a Caramel for just this reason, and am not knowledgeable about the Mailsin line.
So long as kinked offspring are not bred(the responsibility of the breeder,) and the kink free offspring are bred with unrelated animals(the responsibility of the
informed customer,) I don't think it is that big of an issue.
I do think the customer should be made aware of the fact that Caramels(maybe other than the Mailsin line?) can produce kinked offspring, just as customers purchasing a Spider or Spider Combo should be informed of the fact that ALL Spiders can produce offspring that Wobble to some degree.
Broadly... very very broadly, there are three reasons traits can end up linked.
Multiple mutations located on the same allele. These cannot be bred out or avoided, one trait is irreversibly linked to the other and the entire project should be scrapped, all animals that have been produced that may be carriers culled and the concept should be erased from existance.
Multiple mutations located on seperate alleles where both traits were introduced early in a project, becoming linked due to the small avaliability of initial stock. These can be bred out with a great deal of time and effort, however since the siblings of all animals displaying either trait are potential carriers (depending on the genetic transmission of each trait), it's a long term, effort intensive project.
Physical, physiological or behavioral side effects of one of the traits being directly responsible for the other- meaning it's not actually two mutations, but a single mutation that results in a secondary display. A quick and dirty example- there was some hypothesis awhile back that people who were using heat lamps as a primary method of warming an enclosure might see smaller clutches and more slugs in oviviparous species when breeding albinos, the light sensitivity caused the mother to avoid the higher temperatures while gravid and it impacted the development of the offspring. Albinism didn't directly cause smaller clutches or runt offspring, but there was a behavioral change resulting from the primary trait being analyzed.
If a desireable trait (a color mutation for example) is linked to an undesireable trait (wobbling or high incidents of kinking for example), it should be the responsibility of every single person working with the trait to make every attempt to eliminate the negative trait. You state that you don't think it's reasonable to cull kinked siblings... I say it's irresponsible to do anything less.
If the traits are linked in the first manner, they can't be seperated. Ever. Every animal displaying trait one will display or carry trait two and all of them and anything related to them needs to be culled.
If the traits are linked in the second manner, line breeding or inbreeding animals that do not display the negative trait is a positive step, not a negative one. Line breeding doesn't cause mutations or problems by itself, it just exponentially reinforces everything present in an extremely limited genetic pool. If there's something negative in the genetics of the animals being used, it is more likely to surface and be expressed. If there's nothing negative in the genetics of the animals being used, it can theoretically be done forever with no bad consequences. While the potential for negatives in outwardly positive stock will remain an unknown and line breeding is inherently risking the expression of something negative that was dormant and extremely recessive- in stock where there's a known and quantifiable negative trait associated with a positive one, line breeding animals that do not display the negative trait is a good thing... not a bad thing. Line breeding animals that display or are related to animals that have displayed the negative trait is obviously not good.
If the traits are linked in the third manner, it's a bit of a crap shoot. It can't be bred out but it may be worked around with husbandry tweaks. Something as simple as an emphasis on vitamin supplimentation or using non-illuminating heat sources may do the trick... or it may be too complex or have too signifigant an impact to adjust around. Depending on the specifics, it either means a project should be scrapped completely or possibly worked with till a solution is found.
No matter what the cause is or how expensive the morph may have been though, anyone choosing to breed animals has a responsibility to propogate positive traits and eliminate negative ones. Not everyone lives up to that responsibility- the existance of irresponsible people does not itself excuse irresponsibility though.
Rick has in his posession (probably anyway, provided it wasn't MKR animals and MKR photos and he isn't lying about how he and Joe aren't buddies anymore- I tried checking out his site to match photographs or backgrounds and it was a mish-mash of various substrates, angles and backgrounds, no way to tell really) an animal that is displaying a negative trait that is strongly and frequently associated with a particular morph. The responsible thing to do would be to cull all of the resulting offspring, including those not outwardly displaying the kink and any which displayed neither the kink or the color, split up the parents and never allow those two animals to copulate again.
The irresponsible thing to do is advertise them for sale as being from a kink free clutch.
Or remove the photo of the kinked one and still advertise them as being from a kink free clutch.
Or remove the line about being from a kink free clutch and just call them kink free with no mention of the kinked sibling. It's a lie of omission at the very best- a malicious attempt to fraudulently hype animals that have a high probability of being genetic carriers of an extremely negative trait at worst.
No doubt.