# wild caught morphs



## dazook (Oct 20, 2008)

ok guys this might sound a really stupid question but...

I know about recessive, dominent and co-dominent morphs and what they are, and i know that if you cross certain morphs you get new morphs. 

The question is:

'are all the recessive, dominent and co-dominent morphs originally wild caught at some point?'

I realise that albino and pastel is naturally occuring.


sorry again if this is dumb question...


----------



## boywonder (Mar 10, 2008)

it's not a dumb question at all, i only know leopard gecko's but some of the morphs available are the result of line breeding wild caught subspecies, the snow traits are thought to come from fasciolatus
bold patterns come from Afghanicus
giant from montanus
the morphs all had to come from somewhere and it would be cool to know how some of the foundation morphs came about
good thread dazook


----------



## MrMike (Jun 28, 2008)

I know Tremper Albino originated from a Wild caught animal in RTs possesion.


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

In general, YES.

Although the Enigma gene (leopard geckos) cropped up in a long-term captive breeding project, the vast majority of mutations in the reptile world can be traced back to wild-caught animals. That includes albinos, leucistics, even scaleless reptiles.


----------



## paulh (Sep 19, 2007)

dazook said:


> The question is:
> 
> 'are all the recessive, dominent and co-dominent morphs originally wild caught at some point?'


Good question. Short answer is no. Almost all reptile morphs turned up in the wild first, but I understand that striped corns first turned up in a captive bred clutch in the UK. The gene may also be in the wild population, of course.

The longer a species is in captivity, the more likely to have new mutations turn up in the captive population. Most of the budgerigar mutations turned up in captive bred stocks. And back in the 1930s through 1950s, there was a lot of research on the effect of radiation on fruit flies and mice. That produced a lot of new mutations.


----------



## funky1 (Jun 18, 2008)

Regarding leos, as far as I`m aware, the genes of certain sub-species `unlock` or have a reaction with/to the genes of other sub-species. So I guess it makes sense that without man`s interference ie creating a great big gene pool awash with genes from all the sub-species, then many of the available morphs today wouldn`t be in existence.


----------



## dazook (Oct 20, 2008)

thanks for your replys guys even though it did go on to corns and leo more than royals. Think even bugies got a mention...LOL

Still a little unsure as a few say yes and another says no...I realise that some morphs occur though selective breeding but im talking about the main morphs. (ie Lessers, Spiders, Mojo's, Pieds etc) that people dont breed, but use to breed other stuff.

For example you never hear how to make a spider, they are just there to be used to create other morphs...

Anyone else have any new opinions???


----------



## Blackecho (Jun 30, 2008)

They are just genetic misfits.


----------



## Onissarle (Mar 1, 2007)

dazook said:


> For example you never hear how to make a spider, they are just there to be used to create other morphs...


You can't "make" a spider any more than you can "make" a horse with six legs. The variation you see in morphs is a matter of random genetic mutation that happens from time to time in a large population. 

It's the sort of thing that drives evolution. If the mutation isn't harmful to the animal's chances of success, it will gradually work it's way into the population. If it is advantage (such as better camouflage) it may gradually replace the original form or go off on a new path as a seperate sub-species. If it is a disadvantage, the animals are less likely to survive to breed and so it won't be passed on. That's why you don't find many white snakes in the wild (but might find animals carrying its het form or similar such as het albino fairly often in some regions), they are more easily found by predators because they lack camouflage and contrast strongly with their surroundings.

Making new morphs in captivity is generally just mixing together different visually distinctive mutations to create a composite effect.


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

dazook said:


> ok guys this might sound a really stupid question but...
> 
> I know about recessive, dominent and co-dominent morphs and what they are, and i know that if you cross certain morphs you get new morphs.
> 
> ...


"All" would be difficult to prove, but in general most can be traced back to an individual or population where the characteristic occurs in heterozygous form (some homozygous - it will obviously depend on the phenotype.



funky1 said:


> Regarding leos, as far as I`m aware, the genes of certain sub-species `unlock` or have a reaction with/to the genes of other sub-species. So I guess it makes sense that without man`s interference ie creating a great big gene pool awash with genes from all the sub-species, then many of the available morphs today wouldn`t be in existence.


I've heard this "unlock" theory before, but i'm waiting to hear a plausible explanation of what it means. But admixture of "gene pools" will throw up gene combinations that would not occur naturally due to geography.



Blackecho said:


> They are just genetic misfits.


Why is one genotype or phentype more valid than another? What makes one a "misfit"? Are you basing this on fitness traits? Fecundity? ....



Onissarle said:


> You can't "make" a spider any more than you can "make" a horse with six legs. The variation you see in morphs is a matter of random genetic mutation that happens from time to time in a large population.
> 
> *It's the sort of thing that drives evolution*. If the mutation isn't harmful to the animal's chances of success, it will gradually work it's way into the population. If it is advantage (such as better camouflage) it may gradually replace the original form or go off on a new path as a seperate sub-species. If it is a disadvantage, the animals are less likely to survive to breed and so it won't be passed on. That's why you don't find many white snakes in the wild (but might find animals carrying its het form or similar such as het albino fairly often in some regions), they are more easily found by predators because they lack camouflage and contrast strongly with their surroundings.
> 
> Making new morphs in captivity is generally just mixing together different visually distinctive mutations to create a composite effect.


Evolution is not directional, nor would I say that mutation drives it. However I see what you are saying.

Andy


----------



## essexchondro (Apr 9, 2007)

> Evolution is not directional, nor would I say that mutation drives it. However I see what you are saying.
> 
> Andy


Agreed. Natural selection pressures drive evolution. Mutations merely give those pressures something different to act upon.


----------



## paulh (Sep 19, 2007)

dazook said:


> The question is:
> 
> 'are all the recessive, dominent and co-dominent morphs originally wild caught at some point?'


This question does not have limits, which is why corn snakes and other species got dragged into the discussion.

Limiting the discussion to royal pythons, as far as I know, either all or almost all the known mutant genes were first found in snakes from Africa.

Spider is caused by one mutant gene. Some accident changed a normal gene into the spider mutant gene. At this time we do not know how to duplicate that accident. So there is no way to make a spider royal python without starting with a spider. And as far as I know, the first spider royal python that we know of was imported from Africa.


----------



## dazook (Oct 20, 2008)

ok guys thanks for all your replys. :2thumb:


----------



## Blackecho (Jun 30, 2008)

GlasgowGecko said:


> Why is one genotype or phentype more valid than another? What makes one a "misfit"? Are you basing this on fitness traits? Fecundity? ....
> 
> 
> Andy


Its not based on validity, as Paul says, you will get a mutant gene, which will then either survive or not. That is evolution.


----------



## DRD (Nov 12, 2008)

hi there
in general your pieds and most recessive morphs that are your basic morph not combo morph can be wild caught.
there are also dominant and codominants that come through every year wild caught
such as butters
albinos 
pieds
mojos
spiders
champaigne
etc
these are vary sparce though.
however many yellow belly royals are wild caught and are found very often.


----------



## Blackecho (Jun 30, 2008)

Albinos and Pieds are recessive.


----------



## essexchondro (Apr 9, 2007)

> Its not based on validity, as Paul says, you will get a mutant gene, which will then either survive or not. That is evolution.


But to label it a "misfit" surely implies negative connotations i.e that it doesn't fit and will therefore not survive. In reality, of course, it could be a "misfit", a "fit", or a "superfit" depending upon whether that mutation had a negative, neutral, or positive benefit to the animals' survival.


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

Blackecho said:


> Its not based on validity, as Paul says, you will get a mutant gene, which will then either survive or not. That is evolution.


I think you misunderstand, I don't need a lesson on what evolution is, I was questioning your statement about "misfits" which i would suggest is an uninformed opinion. So my point remains, what are you basing this on?

Andy


----------



## Blackecho (Jun 30, 2008)

A gene has 'gone wrong', 'mutated', 'differs from the norm', 'does not fit into the normal pattern'. Call it what you like, I think we all agree with the theory.

Sorry you didn't like me calling it a 'misfit'.


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

I partially agree, but would suggest that "gone wrong" and "differs from the norm" are not the same thing. Different from the normal is a very good way of describing it, as it implies no positive or negative conertations.

Andy


----------



## DRD (Nov 12, 2008)

Albinos and Pieds are recessive.

yes i no they are just mis wrote it!!
many of these wild morphs however wont live a long life in the wild due to predation as they will stick out like sore thumbs


----------

