# INBREEDING LIZARDS - wtf?



## Rou (Dec 23, 2007)

Right I have studied into fair bit into biology and genetics including reproduction and so on. Never have I came across anything that sounds so ludicrous to my ears as inbreeding reptiles (ie leopard geckos and corn snakes) to get a desired morph or desired trait from a morph.

Can someone please explain to me *with references and proof of research* how this is possible when aiming to produce healthy offspring. I for one without knowing the positives (ie desired traits become stronger) to this find it an awful thing to encourage amongst animals of any kind.

Be it for ethical reasons or science, i find this extremely difficult to swallow without knowing more.

Thanks.


----------



## Faith (May 17, 2007)

How on earth do you think most of the morphs were created?
You get one leo for example that is different from anything else you have seen it happens to be male so you breed it to a female and from that get 5 females which would be for arguments sake normal "het" albino because the father was the first albino ever!
How the hell do you propose we extract the albino any other way?

Edit i also refuse to vote in the poll because you have unfair options where is the option to say its fine?
You have to remember lizards are REPTILES not humans!
The only reason humans think it is wrong to inbreed is because we have been conditioned to do so not only that its illigal!


Oh an my referance is Ron Tremper, Steve Skyes, Jeff Galewood, Kelli Hamond.
4 of the the most well know breeders of leopard geckos!


----------



## debcot1 (May 13, 2008)

i would like to know more about this too.
all i know is that beeding brother to sister is a big no no but parent to sibling is somehow ok. people want more and more different morphs and if this is how it happens then who can complain if they want better, brighter wierder looking morphs

imo anyone who votes that its wrong will be hypocrites if they own morphs and that is how the colours are acheived.


----------



## Athravan (Dec 28, 2006)

In corn snakes breeders in the states have gone 8 generations of direct inbreeding that I know of before any physical deformities begin to crop up - and then it's pretty rare.

It is fairly accepted by pretty much all big breeders I know that you inbreed to increase the quality of your lines. You do it for colour, for size etc - if it weakened the health of the animals or created deformities etc. breeders would not be able to do it and still make their money.

Personally I do not know a great deal about the science of inbreeding in mammals or reptiles, and how it differs. But I do know that we have good breeders who've been working with their reptiles for decades, pioneering morphs - and most definitely utilising the same lines - if there were serious side affects to inbreeding in general, they would be seen.

I concur, that you can only in breed so much, there has to be a line drawn, and I have personally heard this referred to as 8th generation quite a number of times.


----------



## sparkle (Mar 21, 2007)

its the same with dogs. cats etc too..

it depends on whether it is F1 or F2 etc etc,,,

and bother to sister CAN be ok but the offspring if u do mate should NEVER be mated. as the risk if you continue gets greater..... loads of people buy 1.1 from clutches... ALL THE TIME.....

who knows the long term effects,., i think you only need to look at enigmas to see that...

but noones going to stop are they>?>>


a lot of the time its fine.. sometims not... when were playing with morph after morph it can get worrying.. only time wil tell..


I think the most risky are the ones that breeders need to produce the next amazing thing as price plumets..,.


Leos and Royal pythons seem to be most at risk along with corns...


----------



## Faith (May 17, 2007)

Also just for the record its done with pedigree dogs as well!
only with the grandchildren so G'Daughter X G'Father.

None of the KC dogs have defects.......


----------



## !! Guy (Jul 12, 2007)

not a big deal. probably happens in the wild a fair bit. the main reason it's seen as wrong is not the genetics. its all social construction.

tbf. if there was only 2 of the same species left and they were brother and sister you'd hardly say it was WRONG to breed them.


----------



## Johelian (Nov 25, 2006)

Im against the breeding of morphs - actually, thats a bit strong, as really I have no interest in morphs rather than an acute hatred - so I voted not acceptable.


----------



## DeanThorpe (Apr 9, 2006)

What i understand of it is that when similar genes or dna [basically from breeding with relatives] mix then abnormalities can occur, and the more you do it or the more similar dna there is [liek siblings would have more identical than a parent to child] the more chance of a abnormality/deformaty or just weakened genetics.

in the case of reptiles i think its how morphs are created and the idea is to once the desired effect is gotten you then outbreed to re-strengthen the bloodline and then everything is on the way back to "normal"
If this is done before any defects then cool, and if any have occured thus far [however many inbreeding has taken place or whatnot] then the likelyhood is it then wouldnt again.... it sort of justifies it.

I think its something that everyone has to be aware of, its why i dont like it when something is for sale, either privately or in a shop or whatever and the seller doesnt know where it came from...its a big world though so i dont think much happens by accident, same as in the wild i guess.

Anyway, i understand a moral objection to soem extent but if no harm comes of it...and they aint humans and well..isnt the moral objection a bit invalid?


----------



## Rou (Dec 23, 2007)

Faith said:


> How on earth do you think most of the morphs were created?
> You get one leo for example that is different from anything else you have seen it happens to be male so you breed it to a female and from that get 5 females which would be for arguments sake normal "het" albino because the father was the first albino ever!
> How the hell do you propose we extract the albino any other way?
> 
> ...


No need to get frustrated about this, i only wanted to know more. 
The option to say it is fine is the first option on the poll as it is not going to be fine to inbreed with all species is it as there will be some biological problem or something?

I am full aware reptiles are not humans, im not stupid so get off your soap box and stop being harsh. 

All I know on the inbreeding scene is that breeding a relative with another relative especially a close related one will result in a biological defect somewhere down the line and it will also reduce the number alleles (genes).

Thank you to debcot who admitted they would too like to know more about this.


----------



## sparkle (Mar 21, 2007)

Rou said:


> No need to get frustrated about this, i only wanted to know more.
> The option to say it is fine is the first option on the poll as it is not going to be fine to inbreed with all species is it as there will be some biological problem or something?
> 
> I am full aware reptiles are not humans, im not stupid so get off your soap box and stop being harsh.
> ...


 
thats why i mentioned enigma leopard geckos..

also the head wobble in line bred spider royal pythons..

and also the stargazing defect in come corns...


pushing the boundries of breeding in ANY species for morph or trait has ALWAYS caused issues.. anyone saying it doesnt is talking pants..

but basic f1 in snake back to parent doesnt seem to..

so there is grey areas inbetween the extreme views..

some say NO WAY do it.. others say.. ITS FINE..

im middle of the road here.. i think at times breeders push it way way too far...


and the defects are unecessary looking for the next big buck

many dont...

just make decisions wisely when buying thats all


----------



## Faith (May 17, 2007)

Rou said:


> No need to get frustrated about this, i only wanted to know more.
> The option to say it is fine is the first option on the poll as it is not going to be fine to inbreed with all species is it as there will be some biological problem or something?
> 
> I am full aware reptiles are not humans, im not stupid so get off your soap box and stop being harsh.
> ...


:lol2:
Inbreeding has been done for at least 10 yrs if you would have done your research then you would know that the way we create new morphs is to inbreed!
Coming on a reptile forum full of people that have the newest morph really isnt smart when your shouting about it being wrong.
You could have just joined the other convo about inbreeding in this section.
And its me thats on my soap box :lol2:
As for me being harsh i think you need to take those boots off as they seem a little to big.
Im not harsh im to the point and straight its not the first time you have thrown your dummy out because someone dont agree with you!


----------



## freekygeeky (May 25, 2007)

personally i dont agree with it 
i know alot of the normalish morphs i have are made by inbreeding, 
but i dont agree with it and wouldnt personally do it. 
i know they arent humans, but i dont think brothers and sisters etc should breed... just aint right


----------



## debcot1 (May 13, 2008)

freekygeeky said:


> personally i dont agree with it
> i know alot of the normalish morphs i have are made by inbreeding,
> but i dont agree with it and wouldnt personally do it.
> i know they arent humans, but i dont think brothers and sisters etc should breed... just aint right


if you dont agree with it then why did you buy them?


----------



## Rou (Dec 23, 2007)

Faith said:


> Also just for the record its done with pedigree dogs as well!
> only with the grandchildren so G'Daughter X G'Father.
> 
> None of the KC dogs have defects.......


I hear what you are saying about pedigree dogs but im sorry have you not heard of problems such as red eye, hip displacia, cardiac cmplaints, uncontrolable obesity, skin ulcers due to folds of skin.
These are all common problems that are the result of being a pedigree dog. 

Also have you never heard that pedigree dogs live much shorter lives to that of a mongrel as the anatomy and biology of the pedigree is never going to be as strong as the mongrel due to the constant inbreeding.

We are talking about reptiles anyway.



!! Guy said:


> not a big deal. probably happens in the wild a fair bit. the main reason it's seen as wrong is not the genetics. its all social construction.
> 
> tbf. if there was only 2 of the same species left and they were brother and sister you'd hardly say it was WRONG to breed them.


agreed in limited populations inbreeding is often induced to prolong the populations longevity however this in turn will get the population to the point where it will cancel itself out as the genetic gene pool will be so limited that eventually females may be born/hatched infertile or males will stop being produced.


----------



## freekygeeky (May 25, 2007)

im not saying i brought inbred geckos, i know where all mine came from, but origionally to get say a hypo years ago someoenn would of done inbreeding and so on.
alot of mine have been rescues anyway, im not going to s=chose what they are then.



debcot1 said:


> if you dont agree with it then why did you buy them?


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

Rou said:


> All I know on the inbreeding scene is that breeding a relative with another relative especially a close related one will result in a biological defect somewhere down the line and it will also reduce the number alleles (genes).


It does not reduce the number of gene pairs - what it does is increase homozygosity. 

If you RUTHLESSLY select for only the healthiest, strongest animals that do not refuse feeds, grow well, thrive and are resistant to problems - and that do not produce weak or deformed offspring - while inbreeding you can actually produce a stronger animal than an outcrossed line.

However, most hobbyists do not ruthlessly cull animals - including adult breeders who produce defective offspring - even if by "cull" you merely mean "sell off animals that are not suited to your breeding program for healthy inbred lines".


----------



## diamondlil (May 7, 2008)

Inbreeding will produce more traits already present in the particular animals used, good or bad. If they have no defective genes (theoretically possible), breeding them together for many generations won't make defects magically appear. If, however, one of the foundation breeders or one of the offspring does have a defective gene, it'll be shown up in later generations of in-breeding.


----------



## Rou (Dec 23, 2007)

Faith said:


> :lol2:
> Inbreeding has been done for at least 10 yrs if you would have done your research then you would know that the way we create new morphs is to inbreed!
> Coming on a reptile forum full of people that have the newest morph really isnt smart when your shouting about it being wrong.
> You could have just joined the other convo about inbreeding in this section.
> ...


I started this thread because I wanted to learn more, I have done my research and I know the likes of tremper (leos) and love (corns) have been inbreeding for many years to create morphs i just cant get my head around how it is genetically stable/acceptable/possible.. whatever to inbreed reptiles but not other species. Humans for one are a species of animal but inbreeding amongst humans results in malformed limbs or organs and so on. I don't want to bring ethics into it as i understand on that side i just... bah. i don't get it.

I'm not shouting my mouth off or anything thanks and my boots fit fine. I'm not having a hissy fit or throwing my dummy out of the pram *i gave that up a long time ago* i just want to learn more hence the part in my first post where i requested peoples references!


----------



## Lizard Loft (Mar 1, 2008)

I would love to know more about this subject,

all i know is inbreeding can have implications somwhere down the line, (good or bad) and i also know it is the only way to get morphs, 

i have a pedigree dalmation (not my choice) and i know he will not live as long as our other dogs have, 15yrs + they have all been mixed breeds, (our current dog is the result of a crossed terrier and a doberman he looks like a mini doberman lol), yet he is a huge dalmation he is bigger by half his body szed of most adults and is only 18months old. (this trait runs in his family, likely due to selective and in breeding)

and i imagine this will be the same for reptiles?? i.e. morphs not living as long as what we call 'normals'?? 

this is just a guess, i have to say i dont agree with the creation of new morphs as i think no morph is 'natural' as they dont occur in the wild to the extend and variations they do in captivity, but however i do see y people buy them, that is why i think breeding lines and records are so important as it can reduce the chances of abnormalities but still ensure morphs stay around.

and if any1 feels the need to bite my head off or take offence then dont be daft, as i meant no offence and im expressin my opinion like im supposed to do lol


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

Rou said:


> i just cant get my head around how it is genetically stable/acceptable/possible.. whatever to inbreed reptiles but not other species. Humans for one are a species of animal but inbreeding amongst humans results in malformed limbs or organs and so on.


Funny enough, unrelated pairings in all species can do exactly the same thing. My dad is not related to my mum, at least not within the last sixteen generations (have traced my geneaology that far). However, BOTH of them carry a deleterious genetic mutation - colourblindness. I know this because my dad is colourblind (this is carried on the X chromosome of which he has only one) and my brother is also colourblind (and he got HIS X chromosome from my mum.) I'm guaranteed het colourblindness - and were I to have male children they'd have a 50% chance of being colourblind too. 

It is no more or less genetically possible to create healthy human offspring from an inbred (closer than cousins) pairing than it is to create healthy cornsnake or leopard gecko offspring from an inbred (closer than cousins) breeding. The MORAL issues are not genetic ones. Yes, inbreed ANY species for many generations and create an artificially limited gene pool and you will probably get deformities cropping up if you don't kill off the defective ones AND stop the producers of defective offspring from breeding... and especially if you allow defective offspring to breed!

That's the same whether you're talking Royal Pythons or the Royal Family.


----------



## LadySofia (Mar 16, 2008)

im sure its the same with white tigers too! they mate a female with the grandfather, then again i may well be wrong. :lol2:


----------



## Schip (Mar 31, 2007)

We use inbreeding and line breeding in pedigree dogs, I personally line breed ie members of the same family outcrossed to another with at least some doubling up on the bitch lines. 

I only Inbreed when I 'think' there is a problem developing, then its brother x sister, mother x son and father x daughter generally if there is a problem it show's up in the first generation with dogs when you line breed like many of us do. In my breed we are lucky to have the KC's genetic specialist who was also part of the canine genome research team so he's taken tails that were docked, dewclaw's etc for dna harvesting and research. My bitch lines also happen to be his late wife's, mother in law and his lines so greatly inbred for scientific as well as show purpose's hence I have a great resource to go to should I have a problem.

I do cull any animals that are not suitable with a healthy happy life, I stop breeding with animals that produce any deformaties be it in my dogs or reptiles or even my parrots when I had those too. My foundation bitch line produced epilpetic puppies with her gfather, so next breeding was done with an outcross again epileptic pups. So despite some of those dogs being excellent quality animals and great breeding prospects they were immediately eliminated from my breeding programs, neutered and pet homed with paperwork showing potential problems for their new owners. 

For me inbreeding is an invaluable tool as part of any breeding program, even my parrots that produced a morph were paired back with their parents as part of a project with chester zoo. All young with the visual morph died by 2 yrs old on both sites ergo we knew there was little point attempting any further breeding as there was a fatal flaw attached to the genetics of that morph.


----------



## Rou (Dec 23, 2007)

Ssthisto said:


> It does not reduce the number of gene pairs - what it does is increase homozygosity.


no sorry what i meant by that is it will reduce components of the DNA ie having the genetic ability to heal wounds faster *rubbish example but best i could think of without it being visual*

that make sense?


----------



## Rou (Dec 23, 2007)

Ssthisto said:


> Funny enough, unrelated pairings in all species can do exactly the same thing. My dad is not related to my mum, at least not within the last sixteen generations (have traced my geneaology that far). However, BOTH of them carry a deleterious genetic mutation - colourblindness. I know this because my dad is colourblind (this is carried on the X chromosome of which he has only one) and my brother is also colourblind (and he got HIS X chromosome from my mum.) I'm guaranteed het colourblindness - and were I to have male children they'd have a 50% chance of being colourblind too.
> 
> It is no more or less genetically possible to create healthy human offspring from an inbred (closer than cousins) pairing than it is to create healthy cornsnake or leopard gecko offspring from an inbred (closer than cousins) breeding. The MORAL issues are not genetic ones. Yes, inbreed ANY species for many generations and create an artificially limited gene pool and you will probably get deformities cropping up if you don't kill off the defective ones AND stop the producers of defective offspring from breeding... and especially if you allow defective offspring to breed!
> 
> That's the same whether you're talking Royal Pythons or the Royal Family.



Ssthisto thank you. I am actually gettung my head around it now. What I basically couldn't understand is why herps could be inbred and still be strong but there are species that cannot. 

What you have been explaining has reminded me of something my lecturer mentioned abotu this which putting that with what you have said has made it alot more clearer for me to understand.

See FAITH this is the sort of thing people should be posting on here when a question is asked. Thanks Ssthisto


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

Rou said:


> no sorry what i meant by that is it will reduce components of the DNA ie having the genetic ability to heal wounds faster *rubbish example but best i could think of without it being visual*
> 
> that make sense?


OR (depending on the selection pressures) it could INCREASE the ability to heal wounds faster, if that's a codominant gene and the ones who heal faster are the ones selected to breed, for example. 

It's possible to inbreed for the intent of producing positive change too  

That said, many reptile species seem particularly "resistant" to inbreeding depression - possibly as a factor of having limited home ranges in the wild, where it's almost guaranteed any animal you're breeding with IS a relative, and may be quite a close one!


----------



## Faith (May 17, 2007)

Rou said:


> I hear what you are saying about pedigree dogs but im sorry have you not heard of problems such as red eye, hip displacia, cardiac cmplaints, uncontrolable obesity, skin ulcers due to folds of skin.
> These are all common problems that are the result of being a pedigree dog.
> 
> Also have you never heard that pedigree dogs live much shorter lives to that of a mongrel as the anatomy and biology of the pedigree is never going to be as strong as the mongrel due to the constant inbreeding.
> ...


There are tests available for hip displacia. The results are called hip scoring!
There is something also called L2-HGA and HC in staffords tests availble for both conditions as well as a central database for effected and carrier dogs.
One of the reasons for the leopard gecko code in my sig was to keep a tract of hets and possible problems coming from the enigmas.

What i am saying is its ok to inbreed for a different look which 1000s of people own, and if they were never inbred then they would never of been created.
Now if we were talking about breeding animals with obvious genetic problems like MBD or effected enigmas then dam right its wrong, but we are not we are talking about line breeding leopard geckos that are 100% healthy to create other beautiful leos!
I would expect that every single breeder on this forum would only breed from 100% healty breeders.
The same with KC dogs we breed and keep track of breedings to eradicate any problems!


----------



## diamondlil (May 7, 2008)

It's no different for reptiles, birds, mammals. The principles of line-breeding and inbreeding are the same. 
I'll give you an anecdotal example. I started breeding PEW mice for feeders, and had 5 generations of healthy mice, producing big litters. I bought a patched male mouse, without knowing that patched can carry a lethal gene causing liver and gut problems. When I bred the resulting patched mice together a couple of generations, I got less and less offspring and had to start all over again. In theory (according to many anti-inbreeding people) , putting a totally unrelated animal in should have strengthened my stock, not weakened it.


----------



## Faith (May 17, 2007)

Rou said:


> Ssthisto thank you. I am actually gettung my head around it now. What I basically couldn't understand is why herps could be inbred and still be strong but there are species that cannot.
> 
> What you have been explaining has reminded me of something my lecturer mentioned abotu this which putting that with what you have said has made it alot more clearer for me to understand.
> 
> See FAITH this is the sort of thing people should be posting on here when a question is asked. Thanks Ssthisto


Ill post what i like thanks very much, dont like my replies? Then dont read them.


----------



## Reptilover (Jan 15, 2007)

Personally i dont think it should be done at all :bash:


----------



## Diablo (May 25, 2007)

I lol'ed at this thread.


----------



## Johelian (Nov 25, 2006)

Does anyone think its arrogant or selfish to inbreed for colour? Saying that thousands of people have it doesnt make it any better in my book.


----------



## sparkle (Mar 21, 2007)

awww.. why cant we all just get along


----------



## Diablo (May 25, 2007)

I think its cool tbh.............................................. It excels the morphs. Fair enough normals are beautiful but Pure white with red eyes ooooooooooooo baby GORGEOUS IMHO 

If the genes didnt want to be mutated then why was they there in the first place.

Ask yourself one question.............. Am I actually alive or dead how do you know.


----------



## Faith (May 17, 2007)

Johelian said:


> Does anyone think its arrogant or selfish to inbreed for colour? Saying that thousands of people have it doesnt make it any better in my book.


No, as i said in my other post what if just one (the first) albino pops out compleatly unexpected? How are you to study just one example when there are to many variables
To sutdy them you would need at least 5, also to check there were no adverse effects you would have to try out crossing as well as line breeding testing all the way to see if any of the genetics are defected.

Decent breeders will no breed from effected stock beit reptiles or dogs, No morph well 99.9% is released until all sorts of breeding has been done, and checked for defects so if we are confident in the people we buy our reptiles from then we should be confident that they do not carry defect genes


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

Johelian said:


> Does anyone think its arrogant or selfish to inbreed for colour? Saying that thousands of people have it doesnt make it any better in my book.


Is it selfish or arrogant to inbreed for large hatchling sizes, large clutching females, animals resistant to disease/mites, or any of the other reasons one might inbreed?

I disagree with inbreeding JUST for colour - but if you intend to inbreed because you're working on producing a specific colour phase AND you select for the healthiest offspring you can ... well, there you go.


----------



## Johelian (Nov 25, 2006)

Faith said:


> No, as i said in my other post what if just one (the first) albino pops out compleatly unexpected? How are you to study just one example when there are to many variables
> To sutdy them you would need at least 5, also to check there were no adverse effects you would have to try out crossing as well as line breeding testing all the way to see if any of the genetics are defected.


Yes, but then how do you justify breeding them specifically to sell? Theres quite a definitive line between doing something like this in the name of scientific advancement and then using it as a commercial tool. Judging by the value, both monetary and sentimental, that people apply to some of these "high-end" morphs, I sincerely doubt that peoples motivation is purely to expand our knowledge of genetics.

Ultimately, inbreeding for morphs is exploiting genetics to achieve something that we want, or to see what we can do. I can understand why people find that exciting and interesting in all honesty, but its not for me.



> Is it selfish or arrogant to inbreed for large hatchling sizes, large clutching females, animals resistant to disease/mites, or any of the other reasons one might inbreed?


I specifically said colour. Im not in favour of morphs, remember.


----------



## Lizard Loft (Mar 1, 2008)

Diablo said:


> I think its cool tbh.............................................. It excels the morphs. Fair enough normals are beautiful but Pure white with red eyes ooooooooooooo baby GORGEOUS IMHO
> 
> If the genes didnt want to be mutated then why was they there in the first place.
> 
> Ask yourself one question.............. Am I actually alive or dead how do you know.


just because those genes are there does not mean they are there to be mutated, they may be left over as the animal evolved, or just there and not having any physical effects as they arn't common enough.


----------



## RasperAndy (Sep 21, 2007)

how much love is there in this thread :flrt:


----------



## Diablo (May 25, 2007)

RasperAndy said:


> how much love is there in this thread :flrt:


lots mate lol


----------



## Faith (May 17, 2007)

Johelian said:


> Yes, but then how do you justify breeding them specifically to sell? Theres quite a definitive line between doing something like this in the name of scientific advancement and then using it as a commercial tool. Judging by the value, both monetary and sentimental, that people apply to some of these "high-end" morphs, I sincerely doubt that peoples motivation is purely to expand our knowledge of genetics.
> 
> Ultimately, inbreeding for morphs is exploiting genetics to achieve something that we want, or to see what we can do. I can understand why people find that exciting and interesting in all honesty, but its not for me.
> 
> ...


If we wanted to breed for money we wouldnt keep reptiles thats for sure!
It dont even cover our live food bill.

So breeding for colour is wrong? 
Umm tell that to the human race and see what reaction you get.
What i mean by that is ........there are a fair few cultures in the world where it is not allowed to "ourcross". So in effect they are inbreeding.
Personally i think thats crap but still.
I dont need to justify breeding morphs we are doing them no harm what so ever and we are not forcing them to breed.
Not only that but its exactly the same for people breedin other species i will be breeding my white stafford next season to increas the gene pool as well as sort out the minor things in her that are not 100%
The idea is to only breed strong offspring.

Heres a Q : How do you know morphs are not natural? What if there were once upon a time morphs in the wild (brightly coloured like albinos) and they were all selectivly removed by preditors?
Which would only leave the "het" around. We remove leos from the wild rais them breed them and an albino pops out :?


----------



## Lizard Loft (Mar 1, 2008)

RasperAndy said:


> how much love is there in this thread :flrt:





Diablo said:


> lots mate lol


There never is with subjects like this is there lol


----------



## Lizard Loft (Mar 1, 2008)

Faith said:


> If we wanted to breed for money we wouldnt keep reptiles thats for sure!
> It dont even cover our live food bill.
> 
> So breeding for colour is wrong?
> ...


I know i was one of the people who said morphs wernt natural, but all i ment was, they wernt as common this would mainly be because if a morph was born, they would likely then later in life breed with a 'het' so reducing the morph genes, and also morphs made from 2 different morphs would likely not exist. 

and in a way we are forcing them to breed, only in the sense that we are puting a male and female in a small enclosed space, and it is after all every living species instinct to breed


----------



## Faith (May 17, 2007)

We are also forcing them to eat, stay is a 2x2 viv when you have an exotic pet that has been domesticated "In the wild" does no apply!
As i said no one knows if morphs are not created in the wild due to natural selection they would be spotted and eaten within days of hatching.


----------



## diamondlil (May 7, 2008)

I know anery corns have been collected from the wild....


----------



## Faith (May 17, 2007)

diamondlil said:


> I know anery corns have been collected from the wild....


There you go then thank you!
They are naturally created in the wild so tell me what we are doing wrong?


----------



## Lizard Loft (Mar 1, 2008)

Faith said:


> We are also forcing them to eat, stay is a 2x2 viv when you have an exotic pet that has been domesticated "In the wild" does no apply!
> As i said no one knows if morphs are not created in the wild due to natural selection they would be spotted and eaten within days of hatching.


I know we are forcing them to eat we put the food in a viv for them,

they may well be created in the wild and selected by predators, but wouldn't that mean the "common/het/normal" animals are more sucessful therefore being what millions of years of evolution want them to be? as this ensures the species survives breeds and carry's on?

Btw im not trying to argue just saying my views, and im not trying to say your opinion is wrong or right (neither am i saying mine is)


----------



## Faith (May 17, 2007)

Lizard Loft said:


> I know we are forcing them to eat we put the food in a viv for them,
> 
> they may well be created in the wild and selected by predators, but wouldn't that mean the "common/het/normal" animals are more sucessful therefore being what millions of years of evolution want them to be? as this ensures the species survives breeds and carry's on?


No because we dont have preditors walking around in our vivs the only reason the brighter ones do not survive is because of the preditors being able to pick them out.


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

Lizard Loft said:


> it is after all every living species instinct to breed


Actually, according to my current reading material (Biological Exuberance by Bruce Bagemihl Ph.D.) there are quite a few species in which reproduction does not appear to be their goal... like 94% of sexual interactions between giraffes.

Granted, we do choose our captive animals' mates - but they can refuse to breed if the mate is not of their liking.


----------



## Lizard Loft (Mar 1, 2008)

Faith said:


> No because we dont have preditors walking around in our vivs the only reason the brighter ones do not survive is because of the preditors being able to pick them out.


Yea i know that, that is why the 'commons etc' are the more dominant morph, because they are the most successfull, therefore being what evolution lead to so far,


----------



## Lizard Loft (Mar 1, 2008)

Ssthisto said:


> Actually, according to my current reading material (Biological Exuberance by Bruce Bagemihl Ph.D.) there are quite a few species in which reproduction does not appear to be their goal... like 94% of sexual interactions between giraffes.
> 
> Granted, we do choose our captive animals' mates - but they can refuse to breed if the mate is not of their liking.


you learn somthing new every day : victory:,

surely an animals main instinct is to survive?, and all of our reps are kept in optimum conditions where food and temps etc are guaranteed, meaning more energy can be focused on breeding?

just a thort lol


----------



## Faith (May 17, 2007)

Lizard Loft said:


> Yea i know that, that is why the 'commons etc' are the more dominant morph, because they are the most successfull, therefore being what evolution lead to so far,


Evolution is compleatly different in the wild than in captivity!
We are talking about CB reptiles that are being bred for colour.
As i said these morphs are found in the wild which is how i can justfiy breeding them!


----------



## diamondlil (May 7, 2008)

Breeding animals etc, we don't create the genes like a mad scientist, we just inbreed any interesting/different/useful individuals that are expressing genes different to the wild type. 
Peppered moth anyone?


----------



## gazz (Dec 9, 2006)

!! Guy said:


> not a big deal. probably happens in the wild a fair bit.


Yes it dose a prize example of this is in lion prides.A male lion will rain for about 5-6 year in this time he WILL breed with and bare offspring with his daughters a fair few times.Before the new blood male comes to kick him out his pride to take his place.Just to do just the same thing giving his bloodline into the pride.This is why the white lion-(a recessive trait) was fairly common in the wild at one time.But if there not in a reserve they are often killed by local tribes.

Genetic mutations are most common in the wild in animal that live in family groups as they are almost certianally related and if there a genetic trait in the group hidden it will show it self sooner or later. 

It's not just corns and leo's that are inbred ANY animal with a desired genetic morph/trait in captivity that human what to harness is almost certianally result of inbreeding.

Cattle/sheep/poutry/dogs/cats'etc'etc'etc are all the result of inbreeding to harness the disired trait needed/wanted.Is happening every where.


----------



## Lizard Loft (Mar 1, 2008)

Faith said:


> Evolution is compleatly different in the wild than in captivity!
> We are talking about CB reptiles that are being bred for colour.
> As i said these morphs are found in the wild which is how i can justfiy breeding them!


so all morphs can be found in the wild??

i know why people breed them, to me its the same reason people breed any of their reps, 

im just saying that morphs are the result of human intervention and selective breeding aswell as in breeding which would never happen in such concentration in the wild, and is purely for human pleasure, curosity etc and mainly because we can. therefore its unnatural.

im not saying its right and im not saying its rong, and i know the are captive reps and will never be in the wild, i know all reps in the pet trade are also ' the result of human intervention ' 

i can see the points for both sides, and i am not taking any side, i dont think morph breeding is morally right nor do i think keeping any animal cpative, but we do it anyway lol. and that is because we can, saying that i don't think its morally rong in most cases either lol


----------



## Faith (May 17, 2007)

Lizard Loft said:


> so all morphs can be found in the wild??
> 
> i know why people breed them, to me its the same reason people breed any of their reps,
> 
> ...


Not all morphs no! all the genetics of the morphs yes!

Think about it you said eariler about evoloution.........the morphs all evolved from a few genes.


----------



## Lizard Loft (Mar 1, 2008)

Faith said:


> Not all morphs no! all the genetics of the morphs yes!
> 
> Think about it you said eariler about evoloution.........the morphs all evolved from a few genes.


i know the genetics are, they have to be really otherwise we couldn't get the morphs,

Tbh this whole subject involving morphs etc fasinates me, and i think ive gone a bit off topic :lol2:,

to answer the original Q, my thoughts of inbreeding are = 

1. It is definately natural occurance, 
2. It is exploited by humans,
3. It rarely leads to the bad "deformaties" odd limbs, etc that people assoicate it with,
4. It does lead to the good "deformaties" colouring size etc

I don't see the harm in it if it is controlled, however i do not agree with over inbreeding or inbreeding of any kind which is not documentated or controlled to ensure minimal negative effects.


----------



## Johelian (Nov 25, 2006)

Faith said:


> If we wanted to breed for money we wouldnt keep reptiles thats for sure!
> It dont even cover our live food bill.
> 
> So breeding for colour is wrong?
> ...


I dont think you can compare this to humanity at all; its already severely taboo and infact illegal in many countries to marry your relatives. Two humans of the same racial origin having children isnt the same as two directly-related lizards being coupled. How can you guarantee that no harm is being caused? Only when a negative trait becomes dominant can you tell that theres a problem and then trace it back; in several generations whos to say that a certain morph will show repeated issues caused by defective genetics? Oh, wait - its already occuring, and not only in reptiles. 

Im sure morphs do occur in the wild, particularly forms like albinism; however, these specimens are naturally culled by predators ensuring these defects dont continue - after all, thats what they are, regardless of how wonderful people think they are. Thats the whole principle of natural selection, and is what ensures that the animals best equipped to survive do. Intentionally breeding for these defects is going against natural selection. 

I personally dont believe there is any "Good" point to inbreeding. Selective breeding, that is, selecting the healthiest unrelated individuals so that their combined genetics can produce an animal with positive traits, is entirely different. I have a question - what positive genetic traits are carried as recessive, and therefore would require inbreeding to guarantee that they were carried to the offspring? As far as Im aware most positive physical traits are dominant to ensure that they are spread to as many offspring as possible.


----------



## Durhamchance (Mar 21, 2008)

I have voted that it is ok- and I intend to do it in the next couple of years. 

Having read the arguments and followed the last few threads on this, I am still quite happy to do this- as I trust the expirienced breeders. I have total faith in Faith- she knows what she is talking about. :notworthy:


----------



## DeanThorpe (Apr 9, 2006)

I think you should read the thread again  jk
sorry, im not against morphs, but imo Faith overjustified it and it got silly.

it doesnt matter if inbreeding happens in the wild as its irrelevant..obviously one gecko can shag another gecko even if it is its sister... makes no difference imo, and if this happens enough or with the "right" specimens then yes morphs would be crewated in the wild..again...not really of any relevance in regards to the ethics of it....or to the safety.

I dont think it needs justifing based on simply that no harm comes of it, or atleast not usually and the aim is to not...


----------



## Faith (May 17, 2007)

Johelian said:


> Im sure morphs do occur in the wild, particularly forms like albinism; however, these specimens are naturally culled by predators ensuring these defects dont continue - after all, thats what they are, regardless of how wonderful people think they are. Thats the whole principle of natural selection, and is what ensures that the animals best equipped to survive do. Intentionally breeding for these defects is going against natural selection.



Thats the point! How do you know if a defect and not evoloution!!!
We cant sit here as say well in the wild they would be killed so they must be the weaker, thats crap.
We have no preditors in our living rooms. Also Intentionally keeping any animal is going against natural selection not just the morphs........You keep bts yes? How many of those that you have do you think would have survived in the wild? 
Thus in preventing them dying by keeping them in our homes (cresteds are a prime example) we are playing god already!


----------



## MrMike (Jun 28, 2008)

I hadn't really thought about the inbredding process before. In light of the info in this thread, as long as the breeders carry the practice out ethically (ensuring all new morphs are 100% healthy etc), then I cannot see a problem with it.


----------



## Lizard Loft (Mar 1, 2008)

> Im sure morphs do occur in the wild, particularly forms like albinism; however, these specimens are naturally culled by predators ensuring these defects dont continue - after all, thats what they are, regardless of how wonderful people think they are. Thats the whole principle of natural selection, and is what ensures that the animals best equipped to survive do. Intentionally breeding for these defects is going against natural selection.


Thats what i was trying to say earlier in the thread, your better with words then me :lol2:


----------



## Johelian (Nov 25, 2006)

Faith said:


> Thats the point! How do you know if a defect and not evoloution!!!
> We cant sit here as say well in the wild they would be killed so they must be the weaker, thats crap.
> We have no preditors in our living rooms. Also Intentionally keeping any animal is going against natural selection not just the morphs........You keep bts yes? How many of those that you have do you think would have survived in the wild?
> Thus in preventing them dying by keeping them in our homes (cresteds are a prime example) we are playing god already!


Um, its not evolution because the animals that deviate from the norm are killed by predators..? Evolution is to ensure the survival of the species; a white reptile with red eyes wont exactly blend in with the environment will it? Similarly an albino animal that relies on the suns rays to metabolise and keep it warm is not designed to survive; the lack of melanin to protect the skin makes that obvious. That isnt "crap", that is scientific fact. An animal that is radically different from the others WILL be killed because it doesnt fit its niche. That too is a fact. Thats why the species HAS evolved to look a certain way; because thats how the species survives. Regardless of your feelings on that matter, that is how natural selection works. Its not "crap".

No, by keeping them in prime conditions in captivity youre giving them a life free of predators and with endless food. By manipulating their genes with no further understanding of what negative traits will emerge in the future you are playing God. 

What are you talking about with BTS - of course they survive in the wild, thats where they come from and in the same form that I own? I have no morphs of BTS - only one actual subspecies. The only reason mine would struggle to survive in the wild is because they are used to being fed - your gecko/beardie morphs wouldnt survive because a predator would spot them a mile off and kill them. BTS are not rare in the wild at all, and they look just like the ones I own. Therefore, this argument is a pointless stab and doesnt support your point at all. Sorry.


----------



## Athravan (Dec 28, 2006)

The whole argument is pretty silly.

Humans create the world they want to live in, we don't adjust to fit the environment, we adjust the environment for our wants, our needs, our desires - including pets.

Designer breeds of dogs, tea cup dogs, sphinx cats, hairless guinea pigs now hitting off a big craze, hairless mice (i don't see how any hairless rodent would survive in the wild really), dumbo mice and rats, reptile morphs, hand reared parrots that are bonded because they think they're human, fish specifically bred to be certain colours.... we keep pets that we want to keep. We don't keep pets that are the most suitable to survive in the wild. That is not really a consideration for the majority of people buying a pet.

I don't consider myself morally corrupt or ethically unsound - I keep and breed many corn snake, boa and beardie morphs (none of whom have ever showed any genetic defects) - I have a dog that was bred to look a certain way, have a certain personality, be a good guard dog and family protector (the german shepherd), I have cats that are burmese, bred to be more affectionate, social and intelligent. I have dumbo, rex, and naked rodents, and I keep and breed a species of pygmy hedgehog that does not even exist in the wild - is a hybrid solely created for the pet trade!

If that's what you call playing God then that's what it is, but it is not exclusive to the reptile trade, and the majority of people out there who have a pet are supporting humans being human, and altering things for their own desires.

I'm sorry but this is a very human world - none of my animals have suffered in any way for their existence, and I think they all have pretty good lives. They will never have to survive in the wild, and whether they would have evolved in the wild is not what I consider important to whether they make a suitable pet in captivity.


----------



## Faith (May 17, 2007)

Johelian said:


> Um, its not evolution because the animals that deviate from the norm are killed by predators..? Evolution is to ensure the survival of the species; a white reptile with red eyes wont exactly blend in with the environment will it? Similarly an albino animal that relies on the suns rays to metabolise and keep it warm is not designed to survive; the lack of melanin to protect the skin makes that obvious. That isnt "crap", that is scientific fact. An animal that is radically different from the others WILL be killed because it doesnt fit its niche. That too is a fact. Thats why the species HAS evolved to look a certain way; because thats how the species survives. Regardless of your feelings on that matter, that is how natural selection works. Its not "crap".
> 
> No, by keeping them in prime conditions in captivity youre giving them a life free of predators and with endless food. By manipulating their genes with no further understanding of what negative traits will emerge in the future you are playing God.
> 
> What are you talking about with BTS - of course they survive in the wild, thats where they come from and in the same form that I own? I have no morphs of BTS - only one actual subspecies. The only reason mine would struggle to survive in the wild is because they are used to being fed - your gecko/beardie morphs wouldnt survive because a predator would spot them a mile off and kill them. BTS are not rare in the wild at all, and they look just like the ones I own. Therefore, this argument is a pointless stab and doesnt support your point at all. Sorry.


MY point is we are not in the wild!
We have removed our pets from the wild so the "in the wild" argument has no place here.
My point with the BTS are they would not all have survived at least one would have been picked off by a preditor thus killing the weakest yes?
Now if bob down the road has a "weeker" BTS that would not have naturally survived in the wild he has no right to breed it is what your saying.
You cant say well i dont like morphs because they are unatural what we do it unatural by keeping them in a 2ft viv!

Not directed at you personally of course just a general term.


----------



## Johelian (Nov 25, 2006)

I didnt say my dislike of designer morphs was limited to the reptile world  My problem with inbreeding for colour - something ridiculously arbitrary - is that you cant guarantee what previously-recessive traits will eventually emerge. Saying its harmless now is all well and good, but its certainly not definite. Theres always a chance of occasional recessive traits emerging in unrelated pairings as well of course; but the likelihood is far more slim.


----------



## sparkle (Mar 21, 2007)

can i just ask 

cos im not up on morphs really... well not leos and royals

why are line bred spiders prone to head wobble... and why are enigmas prone to what seems to be neuro problems.. is it potentially inbreeding as such. although that term is bad i know...

I know a while back diablo and faith and some other leos breeders entered into an excellent discussion about enigmas..

but i wondered if theres proof that breeding for morph and pattern DOESNT cause any issues..



thanks


----------



## Johelian (Nov 25, 2006)

Faith said:


> MY point is we are not in the wild!
> We have removed our pets from the wild so the "in the wild" argument has no place here.
> My point with the BTS are they would not all have survived at least one would have been picked off by a preditor thus killing the weakest yes?
> Now if bob down the road has a "weeker" BTS that would not have naturally survived in the wild he has no right to breed it is what your saying.
> ...


Yes, but even though you have removed them from the wild, does that give you a right to exploit their genetics? Whether in the wild or not, they ARE recessive traits and they ARE defects; do you think the animals are evolving and adapting to live in your lounge when you breed out these recessive traits? So long as you understand that, then thats fine. These colours arent how the animals are meant to be; same as the fact that humans arent MEANT to have albinism for example. You cant use the fact that they survive in captivity with these colours to justify it; what if theres a serious neurological condition associated with a certain morph? Naturally, the animal carrying this trait would be killed and the defect wouldnt continue. By keeping it breeding, you are carrying that defect on into a new generation where it can become dominant. Then what happens? A tainted generation of captive-bred animals? Great. You cant possibly know what long-term effects can come from this, and the fact that youre going against what NATURE has dictated should happen to these animals genetically means that youre really on your own with this one - figuratively speaking of course, there are plenty of other morph breeders out there.

Yes, that is what Im saying; any reptile displaying undesirable genetic faults shouldnt be bred. Would you breed a reptile born with a kinked foot or back? Again, this is how nature ensures that the strongest survive; its only peoples sentimentality that gets in the way and results in weakened gene pools and reoccuring defects. Sure, the runt would probably be killed by a predator - thats what happens, and it makes sure that any genetic reason for that particular skink being killed doesnt end up being passed onto offspring, who in turn would simply die at the hands of predators. 

Working with a species like the monkey tails that have a much smaller captive population I would take the greatest pains to ensure that no related-breeding took place to ensure the strength of the bloodlines for as long as possible. Without new bloodlines from the wild however there will eventually be a time when the far-removed offspring may end up being related. This is inevitable, but can be postponed for decades with careful breeding.

With a species as abundant as leos, I cant see any justification.

I dont like morphs because they are unnecessary and can jeopardise the captive genepool. Its not some holier-than-thou naturalist rant against the scourge of humanity.


----------



## Faith (May 17, 2007)

sparkle said:


> can i just ask
> 
> cos im not up on morphs really... well not leos and royals
> 
> ...


There is no proof hun thats the problem, the debate resulted in me creating the leopard gecko code to keep track of lines that may have problems in..........
The other thing we thought about was the fact that there is indeed a "super" form but people just havent noticed because visually no 2 enigmas are the same.
Unlike the hypo/super hypo which are visually different.
When there is a "super" form as i understand it there has to be 2 alles on the same string of dna. Colour has nothing to do with the super forms technicaly.

As for the spiders id say yes its because of the line breeding but as far as im aware they are no longer line bred but are in fact a co-dom morph. 
There is no need to line breed them anymore, the problem is people didnt remove the weaker spiders from breeding programs so in effect have allowed "carriers" to breed.
The same with the enigmas.


Breeding for pattern and colour does cause issues it causes chemical reactions in the genes, are those genes defective well yes but not defective to the animal in captivity as there are no natural preditors to pick them off one by one.


----------



## Faith (May 17, 2007)

Johelian said:


> Yes, but even though you have removed them from the wild, does that give you a right to exploit their genetics? Whether in the wild or not, they ARE recessive traits and they ARE defects; do you think the animals are evolving and adapting to live in your lounge when you breed out these recessive traits? So long as you understand that, then thats fine. These colours arent how the animals are meant to be; same as the fact that humans arent MEANT to have albinism for example. You cant use the fact that they survive in captivity with these colours to justify it; what if theres a serious neurological condition associated with a certain morph? Naturally, the animal carrying this trait would be killed and the defect wouldnt continue. By keeping it breeding, you are carrying that defect on into a new generation where it can become dominant. Then what happens? A tainted generation of captive-bred animals? Great. You cant possibly know what long-term effects can come from this, and the fact that youre going against what NATURE has dictated should happen to these animals genetically means that youre really on your own with this one - figuratively speaking of course, there are plenty of other morph breeders out there.
> 
> Yes, that is what Im saying; any reptile displaying undesirable genetic faults shouldnt be bred. Would you breed a reptile born with a kinked foot or back? Again, this is how nature ensures that the strongest survive; its only peoples sentimentality that gets in the way and results in weakened gene pools and reoccuring defects. Sure, the runt would probably be killed by a predator - thats what happens, and it makes sure that any genetic reason for that particular skink being killed doesnt end up being passed onto offspring, who in turn would simply die at the hands of predators.
> 
> ...


Expolit! We do not force them to breed.
No we would never breed from any animal that was not 110%, although a fair few breeders have done (not talking about the ones on here) 
A prime example would be star gazing corns, head spinning royals and the enigma.
They dont jeopardise the gene pool with leos we can bring in WC stock for out crossing making sure the pool is widened at every chance. Breeding unrelated stock with the same genes to aquire the morphs people desire.

At least 99% of people on this forum own an animal that has been selectivily bred for colour, personality, size and survival, i dont see how that is wrong.


----------



## sparkle (Mar 21, 2007)

Faith said:


> There is no proof hun thats the problem, the debate resulted in me creating the leopard gecko code to keep track of lines that may have problems in..........
> The other thing we thought about was the fact that there is indeed a "super" form but people just havent noticed because visually no 2 enigmas are the same.
> Unlike the hypo/super hypo which are visually different.
> When there is a "super" form as i understand it there has to be 2 alles on the same string of dna. Colour has nothing to do with the super forms technicaly.
> ...


 
thanks faith that helps loads.. xx


----------



## Faith (May 17, 2007)

sparkle said:


> thanks faith that helps loads.. xx


No worries hun


----------



## amphib-fan1990 (Jun 3, 2008)

i breed corn snakes and to get new morphs you do have to inbreed which is okay it happens in the wild all "designer morphs" like the R.A.P.T.O.R leopard gecko and the Super giant leopard gecko and golddust corns were created by in breeding. i have no problem with it myself


----------



## purejurrasic (Mar 18, 2006)

Well heres my 2pennies worth.

Line breeding _can _have associated issues. I use the word issues carefully, as the issue may not always be a negative issue, as already mentioned.

Mutation. thats a word used in these kind of threads a lot. 



> mutate Show phonetics
> verb _
> 1 to develop new physical characteristics because of a permanent change in the genes. These changes can happen naturally or can be produced by the use of chemicals or radiation:
> These bacteria have mutated *into* forms that are resistant to certain drugs.
> ...


_

from this Cambridge dictionary definition, its clear that 'mutations' can happen from natural events or form man made events.

Many of these threads use the latter meaning, in other words us humans are geneticly modifying these genes to get results. Thats just not the case. Breeders dont (to my knowledge) splice genes or use chemicals or anything, animals are simply put together and nature takes place. Albino genes ARE found in the wild, thats where all Albinos came from. Maybe in the wild two animals carrying one albino allele would never meet, maybe they would, maybe the babies would be picked off by preditors, maybe they wouldnt, but its all natural.

Just because its against the law to inbreed humans in many countries, it does not change the outcome of such pairings.

To be honest, the morality issue has been tagged onto this by us humans, inbreeding happens in the wild, just that leos dont have policeman and MPs dictating how they live.

The issue with line breeding in humans is not because they line breed, its because incompatible genes, damaged genes and carried genes meet up in one human and cause problems. this can happen with any two totally unrelated humans.

I do however, accept and belive, that any breeder, line breeding or not, has a responsibilty to that species as a whole and if they come across a problem, they should do what ever they can to investigate and irradicate that problem.

For example, the enigma leo. There is documented evidence that some of these have some kind of problem that results in tail chasing. This was highlighted by a breeder on RFUK and all sorts of rubbish was thrown at them. However a few breeders agreed to investigate it. Myself included, I am not very far far down that road, but for sure I can say that breeding two enigmas together is NOT the cause of these problems, and that outcrossing them will no always irradicate the problem.

So no, I dont think its wrong, but anyone doing it has responsibilites and should act on those responibilties correctly._


----------



## GazEmm (Jul 11, 2006)

I always find threads like this great :lol2:

I just did a nice long post for this but the page wouldn't load so :censor: it!!

One thing i would like to point out is the people who can accept it put in a much better argument than the ones against it.

I for one have no problem with it as long as the general 'rules' are stuck to.

...oh and id bet inbreeding occurs all the time, even in 'normals' its just not visable for you all to jump on.


----------



## Gecko_Sean (Aug 15, 2007)

This has been a very intresting read. I agree with Faith on this one. I think its fine to inbreed for colour or whatever you want. What i do understand is albino being a weaker gene. If albinos were weaker gene wise how come there are such big successful healthy groups of them in captivity? Im not talking about the wild as it dosn't apply to breeding in captivity. 

Im sure dogs were also bred for colours which is why there are different colour "morphs" of certain breeds, do you class this as wrong? 
You cant just say inbreeding for colour is wrong, you are either for or againsed it IMO. 

If you think its wrong to breed family members, what about tigers and pandas? Humans are just breeding them as a choice to keep them around. If it wasnt for humans inbreeding them they would have been gone a long time ago. 

If you dont agree with inbreeding because its not natural then we should just let the endangered species die out like nature is intending. Nature intedned us to be here and species become extinct, thats life.

I think breeding new types of dog is worse than a new colours in leos. Dogs actually have serious health problems because of this inbreeding, as for my leos all the morphs i have dont seem to be any less healthy that the 'normal' morph.

Thats just reminded me, the normal morph itself has been inbreed to make the best looking normal resulting in a normal that looks different to wild leos. Normal leos are seen as stong and dominant gene when they were created by humans too so i dont get the argument 

sorry i have confused myself


----------



## Johelian (Nov 25, 2006)

Gecko_Sean said:


> This has been a very intresting read. I agree with Faith on this one. I think its fine to inbreed for colour or whatever you want. What i do understand is albino being a weaker gene. If albinos were weaker gene wise how come there are such big successful healthy groups of them in captivity? Im not talking about the wild as it dosn't apply to breeding in captivity.
> 
> Im sure dogs were also bred for colours which is why there are different colour "morphs" of certain breeds, do you class this as wrong?
> You cant just say inbreeding for colour is wrong, you are either for or againsed it IMO.
> ...


Oh my word, sometimes I think people chose what they want to believe. Albinism is RECESSIVE - its a trait that isnt designed to be evident in the majority of the population. The only reason they are alive is because people have kept them safe in captivity; they may not be physically weaker and about to drop dead, but the fact of the matter is that a RECESSIVE gene has been made dominant. Sickle cell anaemia is also a trait that is genetically RECESSIVE. Do you understand the potential issues that may arise from allowing otherwise-recessive genes to emerge?

Nature hasnt intended endangered animals to become extinct - what kind of argument is that? MANKIND has resulted in massive population of animals being dwindled; its not like theres been a massive climate change (yet), another Ice Age thats killed off all the animals that cant evolve to survive! Mankind has decimated the areas that certain species live in, which has forced them to drop in numbers; nature hasnt dictated that these animals must die. Similarly, how much inbreeding do you think is going on on these endangered animals? Unless there is no other option conservationalists are ensuring that bloodlines stay strong by PURPOSEFULLY breeding unrelated animals. Why do you think so many breeders insist on unrelated pairs of rarer animals? Because theyre part of some crazy cult? No - because its the best way to ensure that the genes are "clean". 

Yes Im against all inbreeding in all species for designer purposes. I think thats clear.

Everyone says that "the wild doesnt apply as this is captivity"...what a blinkered view. Because this is captivity should we be promoting defective genes? No. Because this is captivity we have more control and therefore should be PROTECTING strong bloodlines. 

"Normal" leos by the average understanding would not have been bred specifically for colour. If youre referring to any colour bred specifically and deviating from the natural form then its certainly not natural, regardless of whether its considered the "norm".



> One thing i would like to point out is the people who can accept it put in a much better argument than the ones against it.


Oh please. I wonder which side youre on. 



> Expolit! We do not force them to breed.
> No we would never breed from any animal that was not 110%, although a fair few breeders have done (not talking about the ones on here)
> A prime example would be star gazing corns, head spinning royals and the enigma.
> They dont jeopardise the gene pool with leos we can bring in WC stock for out crossing making sure the pool is widened at every chance. Breeding unrelated stock with the same genes to aquire the morphs people desire.
> ...


Youre comparing a lizard to a person. A person would say "I shouldnt breed with my relative, its not a good idea for the offspring". A lizard doesnt rationalise; it mates with what is available. Even so, nature has put some fallbacks in place; baby lizards dont all stay together when theyre born do they? No, they scatter to new areas to find new mates. Why do you think that is? Even animals with a familial hierachy like monkey tails will leave the group when old enough to find a new home. If forced to stay together, yes they will mate as thats what they are geared to do; to survive and reproduce, regardless of the outcome.

Right, so if everyone owned a selectively bred animal it MUST be right. Whatever. I have presented the facts against this argument, and now everyone will go back to doing what they did before. 

Anyone interested in having a broader view on this should have a look at some of the articles on Colour Morphs in Reptilia; very refreshing to see someone actually presenting "the other side".


----------



## purejurrasic (Mar 18, 2006)

*PLEASE NOTE: the word 'You' is used in this post not to point at anyone specificly, but in general terms.*

Just out of interest, if you carried the huntingtons desease gene, would you be 'wrong' 'imorral' 'illegal' or 'mutating' the human gene pool if you had a child?

Should you be forced to not have children. Should you be shunned.

If you did have children, and god forbid, your child was effected, what would your reaction be to the passer by who looked at your child and told you he/she was wrong, shouldnt be allowed, should be put down. That you were inmorral and irresponsible and your child was un natural and a defect?

All very strong stuff I know, and designed to prompt response.

You would react very strongly in defence of you and your child. But whats the difference at the root level? its still naturally occuring genes reacting.

And would you also be against all forms of research to investigate these deseases, or would you advocate 'culling' those affected so they did not pollute the human race?

And before anyone jumps on the 'doing it for money' bandwagon, thats a different subject to this, this is discussing the morality and genetic effects of line breeding.


----------



## Twiisted (Mar 15, 2008)

Faith said:


> Also just for the record its done with pedigree dogs as well!
> only with the grandchildren so G'Daughter X G'Father.
> 
> None of the KC dogs have defects.......


Inbreeding is a way of getting 'perfection' ... Sounds messed but its true.

Obviously there are guildlines... But I think breeding different species to each other causes more problems.


----------



## purejurrasic (Mar 18, 2006)

I also belive using the terms recessive and dominant with in this discussion is not correct and adds nothing to it.

In humans the gene for unattatched ear lobes is dominant, attatched ear lobes recessive.

So if you or anyone has attatched ear lobes, they are not natural and should be culled?

I am sorry, but I dont belive recessive or dominate genes have anything to do with this topic what so ever, unless you are suggesting we should all turn to some kind of eugenics program to irradicate all forms of live that are not 'deemed' to be the superior 'natural' life form.


----------



## sparkle (Mar 21, 2007)

i have attatched ear lobes and most would agree I should be culled..

so there may be something in that..

lol


----------



## Twiisted (Mar 15, 2008)

sparkle said:


> i have attatched ear lobes and most would agree I should be culled..
> 
> so there may be something in that..
> 
> lol


Ahhh u freak!


----------



## Johelian (Nov 25, 2006)

I dont know how Huntingdons is carried, but I would assume its also a recessive gene. Therefore, if you decide to have a child, you are taking a risk at passing that to your child. Now, we are fortunate that we are so abundant a race that we can survive genetic abnormalities to an extent; they arent the norm, and so do not corrupt the whole. With regards to morphs, they are now "the norm" sadly, and make up the largest percentage of the population in some captive species. This has been entirely carried out by humans.

I have a disabled brother; yes, this is a genetic defect, and no it isnt how humans should be. I dont have any problems with admitting that, because its true. It doesnt mean I love him any less. You dont think people dont look at him, and know that hes "wrong"? The difference is that I wouldnt them say "hey, lets let him have children with my mother and have a bunch of babies the same!". People dont lord in their defects, but they seem to love them in reptiles. Its not naturally occuring when you breed to exploit them ON PURPOSE. Its one thing to have a one-off and another to purposefully try and get that result. Who would purposefully have sex with someone else with a normally recessive trait in order to have children with the same defect?

But, can you even compare having a child to breeding pets? Children are mostly considered to people to be a necessity (not to me might I add), pets are an option.


----------



## purejurrasic (Mar 18, 2006)

sparkle said:


> i have attatched ear lobes and most would agree I should be culled..
> 
> so there may be something in that..
> 
> lol


 
lol, nooooo, who would we have to argue with then ??

But thats my point, thats a recessive genetic trait, so according to the argument, its not natural, should not be allowed and is morally wrong.

The fact you have a reccesive gene DOES NOT make you un natural....

... though it could make you argumentative i guess :Na_Na_Na_Na::flrt:


----------



## missk (Jan 14, 2008)

i think so long as it is done responsibly, and for a very limited number of generations, inbreeding is ok. Choosing the best stock to breed together is imperative, so any deleterious alleles are kept to a minimum. I can see Johelion's arguement though, and think she puts it very well, but it is being misinterpreted by others somewhat. 

Both sides of the argument have valid points, and i think direct inbreeding should be avoided where possible, and think it can occur just to save money, e.g. I want to make z, but only have x and y, but if i breed x and y together, and get xyz, then breed that back to x or y i can make something more expensive without having to go out and buy one. this is not the creation of brand new morphs. 

Good debate guys!


----------



## GECKO62 (Jun 12, 2008)

Faith said:


> Also just for the record its done with pedigree dogs as well!
> only with the grandchildren so G'Daughter X G'Father.
> 
> None of the KC dogs have defects.......


 It is and some of the top great dane that have been best in breed at crufts have been line breed ,it not un heard of putting father back to daughter or mother to son if a breeder want to keep and inprove on a trait in the off spring ,its also done in pedigree cats . As long as it not from the same litter like brother and sister mating but you can do it if its same mother different father different litter .


----------



## sparkle (Mar 21, 2007)

purejurrasic said:


> lol, nooooo, who would we have to argue with then ??
> 
> But thats my point, thats a recessive genetic trait, so according to the argument, its not natural, should not be allowed and is morally wrong.
> 
> ...


for once i can use the :lol2: flag genuinely..

my sides hurt now... tee-hee

I wonder if we should start a poll seeing if attatched ear lobe humans are more arguementative than ones with unattatched.,.

my oldest daughter is a real softie and she has unnatatched.. my youngest has attatched and shes a terror..

you may have a theory there ( not sure if you would get supported funding for research but the question is an interesting one)

:2thumb:


----------



## Johelian (Nov 25, 2006)

I think people are purposefully trying to misunderstand this; when inbreeding there is a greater risk of harmful recessive traits manifesting. It has nothing to do with culling and earlobes..? You seem under the impression that I have said that "freaks" of nature should all be destroyed; and, if we lived like animals, that would be the case. Again, human sentimentality prevails and we take care of our "freaks". But we then take it one step further and start to breed them to specifically produce "freaks". Thats not so sensible, wouldnt you agree?

Again, to revert back to a harmful recessive trait like sickle cell - how has it become so hugely rampant? Because people with the recessive gene have had children in which the disorder is now dominant - largely as a result of inbreeding.


----------



## missk (Jan 14, 2008)

but sickle cell is selected for in malarial countries... gives you resistance, and by the time it kills you you've already had kids.


----------



## purejurrasic (Mar 18, 2006)

Johelian said:


> I dont know how Huntingdons is carried, but I would assume its also a recessive gene. Therefore, if you decide to have a child, you are taking a risk at passing that to your child. Now, we are fortunate that we are so abundant a race that we can survive genetic abnormalities to an extent; they arent the norm, and so do not corrupt the whole. With regards to morphs, they are now "the norm" sadly, and make up the largest percentage of the population in some captive species. This has been entirely carried out by humans.
> 
> I have a disabled brother; yes, this is a genetic defect, and no it isnt how humans should be. I dont have any problems with admitting that, because its true. It doesnt mean I love him any less. You dont think people dont look at him, and know that hes "wrong"? The difference is that I wouldnt them say "hey, lets let him have children with my mother and have a bunch of babies the same!". People dont lord in their defects, but they seem to love them in reptiles. Its not naturally occuring when you breed to exploit them ON PURPOSE. Its one thing to have a one-off and another to purposefully try and get that result. Who would purposefully have sex with someone else with a normally recessive trait in order to have children with the same defect?
> 
> But, can you even compare having a child to breeding pets? Children are mostly considered to people to be a necessity (not to me might I add), pets are an option.


 
So what part of a morph is a disability ?

I know about leopard geckos, and I know there is a possible issue surrounding the enigma morph, but as yet thats not been researched and anyone who dared raise the issue got shot down.

However, those responsible breeders are indeed researching it, and I know of many that will stop breeding them if it turns out to be linked to the genetics of that morph.

Thats just one morph, what disability do albino leos have, or super hypos, or blizzards or any of the other morphs? they still have a full active life.

I know they are not in the wild, and if they were they stand a nuch higher chance of being eaten, but thats the same with humans, we moved to caves, then houses, to stop getting eaten, we reserach illnesses to prolong life, we hack out bits of our bodies and replace them with man made items to live longer, we take man made chemicals to combat disabilites due to illness. Are we, the human race, not natural or normal, should we all just stop breeding and kill ourselves.

So, going back to the original post, the answer is simple, animals do not date each other, thats just a human emotion that has evolved with us, WE have placed laws against it our selves, to protect the unborn child, or is it because we find it distastful? A bit of both I think, but fact remains the only reason us humans consider linebreeding our own race as wrong is because we have placed that lable on it ourselves in order to avoid the possible results of such a mating.


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

Johelian said:


> Oh my word, sometimes I think people chose what they want to believe. Albinism is RECESSIVE - its a trait that isnt designed to be evident in the majority of the population.


Actually, "recessive" does not mean "designed to fail". 

If a recessive trait is more successful at surviving than its equivalent dominant allele ... then the animals without that dominant allele will not survive to breed as often or as readily as those with the recessive trait. And a dominant or codominant trait that is unsuccessful is VERY easy to weed out of a population - it doesn't "hide" in heterozygous animals.

It may be that at some point in the very distant past what we know as the "Normal" spotted colour phase in leopard geckos was in fact a RECESSIVE allele to an original dominant trait. For example, _Eublepharis hardwicki_ is a dark red-brown and peach *banded* gecko even at adulthood - is this the dominant colour allele? It's entirely possible that the reason we have two species instead of one (and one species starts off with bands that change into spots) is because certain inbred locale populations wound up with a recessive spotting mutation... which became the dominant trait for the new species.



> Sickle cell anaemia is also a trait that is genetically RECESSIVE.


Actually it's codominant.
Heterozygous for sickle cell individuals have an increased resistance to malaria (POSITIVE mutation).
It's only homozygous individuals who have the deleterious genetic disease.


----------



## GazEmm (Jul 11, 2006)

I think the people who are against the idea are jumping straight to a WORST CASE SCENARIO with one big leap.

I mean, even the people who are 'for' the idea are admiting its not a good idea to keep on doing it generation after generation...they all accept its not so clever to be doing it after about F3. However, it does not appear to cause any problems going up to about F3.

If it is so detremental from the off, where is all the evidence of this? As already mentioned, other than the odd exception (enigmas, spiders) all other morphs seem to thrive!! I did a recent post for Leo morphs that had common issues associated with them and *ALL* that came out of it was the enigmas. This is hardly evidence worthy of ending all inbreeding.

...and in responce to my earlier post and the reply it got, im on no sides. I have no problem with it, but then i do have very low morals anyway :lol2: and i dont know enough about genetics to even comment or come to a worth while opinion...i simply stated, from what i had read, the people who have no problems with the idea seemed to have better explanations/evidence as to why than those who dont.


----------



## gaz (Oct 5, 2005)

ok so i only breed snakes,but its a purely commercial thing to breed morphs(although most boa morphs are naturally occuring in the wild sometimes as the odd animal like albinos or as entire populations such as hog island boas,all hypos) however the main thing is this,you will have great difficulty making a living by breding the "ordinary" varieties of any reptile,and as professional breeders are driven by economic necessity its morphs all the way.
In the end its the customer who decides whats getting produced,the breeders just respond to demand(to a larger or smaller extent) so if you are going to have a commercial market in any animal then expect morphs/line breeding,its the only way breeders can survive in a cut throat world. Of course we produce pure bred animals as well,but its the morphs that pay for it all at the end of the day
regards gaz
ps:my apologies if i have answered the wrong question,it is the lizard section after all(foreign territory an all that)and i should be doing other stuff:whistling2:


----------



## missk (Jan 14, 2008)

purejurrasic said:


> So, going back to the original post, the answer is simple, animals do not date each other, thats just a human emotion that has evolved with us, WE have placed laws against it our selves, to protect the unborn child, or is it because we find it distastful? A bit of both I think, but fact remains the only reason us humans consider linebreeding our own race as wrong is because we have placed that lable on it ourselves in order to avoid the possible results of such a mating.


Human inbreeding is illegal in part to protect children from abuse etc, but also because it ends up increasing the chance of people being born with disabilities. The Austrian(?) royal family got so inbred at one point that the king was so malformed in his jaw he couldn't chew his food.

The label placed on human inbreeding is justified, (i know you weren't saying it wasn't) it isn't just becuse its not a nice thought having a kid with your dad. A lizard cannot know the outcome of breeding with a close relative, and the way they disperse in the wild has evolved to avoid inbreeding as much as possible. hence the ethical question, they can't know it can have bad implications to breed with a close relative, inbreeding increases the chance of throwing up disabitlities/malformities. this is an indisputable fact, but when we purposefully make it happen even with the knowledge of increased risk of deleterious alleles being thrown up, is that right? 

This is one of the ethical issues with inbreeding lizards. yes deformities can crop up with non-related pairings, but the likelihood is less, therefore is it right to risk the health of our lizards just in case something 'pretty' comes out?


----------



## Gecko_Sean (Aug 15, 2007)

Johelian said:


> Oh my word, sometimes I think people chose what they want to believe. Albinism is RECESSIVE - its a trait that isnt designed to be evident in the majority of the population. The only reason they are alive is because people have kept them safe in captivity; they may not be physically weaker and about to drop dead, but the fact of the matter is that a RECESSIVE gene has been made dominant. Sickle cell anaemia is also a trait that is genetically RECESSIVE. Do you understand the potential issues that may arise from allowing otherwise-recessive genes to emerge?
> 
> Nature hasnt intended endangered animals to become extinct - what kind of argument is that? MANKIND has resulted in massive population of animals being dwindled; its not like theres been a massive climate change (yet), another Ice Age thats killed off all the animals that cant evolve to survive! Mankind has decimated the areas that certain species live in, which has forced them to drop in numbers; nature hasnt dictated that these animals must die. Similarly, how much inbreeding do you think is going on on these endangered animals? Unless there is no other option conservationalists are ensuring that bloodlines stay strong by PURPOSEFULLY breeding unrelated animals. Why do you think so many breeders insist on unrelated pairs of rarer animals? Because theyre part of some crazy cult? No - because its the best way to ensure that the genes are "clean".


So what if its a recessive gene my ginger hair is recessive, its not meant for the whole population. How can you compare albino (a lack of pigment) and Sickle cell anaemia (a blood disease)? I dont get your point. Just because they are recessive genes. One is an illness. 

Nature has made humans well equipt to survive and because of this we are expanding and other animals are becoming extinct, what has always happened. We can survive they cant, they die off and the animals that can, stay around. Maybe its time for humans to stop interfering with the breeding of endangered animals. Forcing them to breed just so we can have them around.


----------



## Faith (May 17, 2007)

Johelian said:


> Youre comparing a lizard to a person. A person would say *"I shouldnt breed with my relative, its not a good idea for the offspring"*. A lizard doesnt rationalise; it mates with what is available.


Wrong! Humans do not "inbreed" because we have been conditioned to think this is wrong, we do not inbreed because there are law against it. 

And you say the people on the "for inbreed" side of the argument are blinkered!


----------



## daddycool (Jan 22, 2007)

I don't agree with inbreeding, and so don't sell mating pairs when i sell my baby chameleons, this upsets some people, but it is MY choice, and I make that choice on the grounds of my own moral and ethical choices, I wouldn't want to breed with my sister, nor would I want to breed with my daughter, the thought of humans who do this appalls me, and yet this happens around the world, we all know of jokes about this....

SO I made the decision that I would only sell pairs of females, or single males, no male/female combinations, because it is against my own personal views
I know my adult chameleons are unrelated, at least as far back as is possible to know......
I know in the wild they may inbreed, but that is then their choice

I will also add, that I don't know all the implications of inbreeding, and whether it is any worse than unrelated breeding, but when i am selling my babies, I personally don't like the idea. I don't know much about morphs, and so can't comment on that
I don't therefore have an opinion on whether or not it is WRONG to inbreed, just that I choose not to....


----------



## Faith (May 17, 2007)

Twiisted said:


> Inbreeding is a way of getting 'perfection' ... Sounds messed but its true.
> 
> Obviously there are guildlines... But I think breeding different species to each other causes more problems.


yep i compleatly agree it is a way of perfecting the dog for example bulldogs have breathing problems etc and personally should now be outcrossed to dogs with longer snouts to give them back their orignal look




Johelian said:


> Therefore, if you decide to have a child, you are taking a risk at passing that to your child.
> 
> I think people are purposefully trying to misunderstand this; when inbreeding there is a greater risk of harmful recessive traits manifesting. It has nothing to do with culling and earlobes..? You seem under the impression that I have said that "freaks" of nature should all be destroyed; and, if we lived like animals, that would be the case. Again, human sentimentality prevails and we take care of our "freaks". But we then take it one step further and start to breed them to specifically produce "freaks". Thats not so sensible, wouldnt you agree?


So you diagree with the uk woman that had a genetic identical to her eldest son to save his life with a bone marrow transplant?
Because that is basically what inbreeding is, the "freak" gene on the rare occasion can and has saved lives, She had a baby with the sole reason of saving her eldest son.


----------



## Johelian (Nov 25, 2006)

Again, I dont know why I need to reiterate - youre purposefully breeding for recessive genes. Whether its for a disorder, a disability or a colour, its still a recessive trait purposefully being exploited. Does that make it any clearer? Gecko_Sean, your arguments have already been refuted; humans destroying the planet isnt "nature". Why do you think that the climate is changing so rapidly? Its certainly not down to anything nature has done; its down to our own refusal to work alongside nature, and will lead to all of our undoing. Humans are changing the plants climate far too quickly for evolution to have any significant effect; were it not for our own greed these animals wouldnt be endangered in the first place, and we wouldnt feel a guilty need to try and cultivate them now. But that aside - what morph breeders arent doing is trying to save a species from extinction, so I dont quite know why you keep bringing it up. It isnt the same principle; breeding for a hobby isnt breeding with the hope that a species might be reintroduced in to the wild again.



> I think the people who are against the idea are jumping straight to a WORST CASE SCENARIO with one big leap.


Whats THE BEST CASE SCENARIO? A nice new colour to add to the collection?



> Thats just one morph, what disability do albino leos have, or super hypos, or blizzards or any of the other morphs? they still have a full active life.
> 
> I know they are not in the wild, and if they were they stand a nuch higher chance of being eaten, but thats the same with humans, we moved to caves, then houses, to stop getting eaten, we reserach illnesses to prolong life, we hack out bits of our bodies and replace them with man made items to live longer, we take man made chemicals to combat disabilites due to illness. Are we, the human race, not natural or normal, should we all just stop breeding and kill ourselves.


Again with the killing. I dont think there was ever any mention of killing - and I believe I have addressed that already. Im getting a bit fed up of repeating things.

And again - how can you guarantee that there will be no trouble with this approach in the future? The clues given already by defective traits becoming evident should be enough of a suggestion that you run a higher risk of genetic defomities, whatever they are, when individuals are inbred - so who is to say that this wont become more severe in future generations? Just because its not evident now doesnt mean that it isnt lurking, and to what end would it be if they emerged - because we wanted some new "designer" colours?



> Actually, "recessive" does not mean "designed to fail".
> 
> If a recessive trait is more successful at surviving than its equivalent dominant allele ... then the animals without that dominant allele will not survive to breed as often or as readily as those with the recessive trait. And a dominant or codominant trait that is unsuccessful is VERY easy to weed out of a population - it doesn't "hide" in heterozygous animals.
> 
> ...


Actually, I agree with you - a recessive trait isnt always negative. However, the potential for harmful traits is higher when inbreeding, and I dont know personally of any positive otherwise-recessive traits other than colour (which I dont consider important enough to be positive) that have emerged in leopard geckos. So why do it?

And yes, you could be right - the colours we know today may have resulted from one distinctive split in the past, and gradually become the norm over many years. Ill agree on that. But I dont believe that it came about as a result of inbreeding, or the amount of time it would have taken for such results would have been insurmountable. "Forcing" a trait isnt the same as allowing one to develop, and the end result is very unlikely to bear any resemblance.

Let me ask all you pro-morphers a question; WHY do you inbreed? Whats the purpose? If anyone has a response that has the animals best interests at heart Id like to hear it.


----------



## Johelian (Nov 25, 2006)

Faith said:


> yep i compleatly agree it is a way of perfecting the dog for example bulldogs have breathing problems etc and personally should now be outcrossed to dogs with longer snouts to give them back their orignal look
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I really dont see what this has to do with anything; saving a human life is now on par with breeding pets?


----------



## Faith (May 17, 2007)

Johelian said:


> Again, I dont know why I need to reiterate - youre purposefully breeding for recessive genes. Whether its for a disorder, a disability or a colour, its still a recessive trait purposefully being exploited. Does that make it any clearer? Gecko_Sean, your arguments have already been refuted; humans destroying the planet isnt "nature". Why do you think that the climate is changing so rapidly? Its certainly not down to anything nature has done; its down to our own refusal to work alongside nature, and will lead to all of our undoing. Humans are changing the plants climate far too quickly for evolution to have any significant effect; were it not for our own greed these animals wouldnt be endangered in the first place, and we wouldnt feel a guilty need to try and cultivate them now. But that aside - what morph breeders arent doing is trying to save a species from extinction, so I dont quite know why you keep bringing it up. It isnt the same principle; breeding for a hobby isnt breeding with the hope that a species might be reintroduced in to the wild again.
> 
> 
> Whats THE BEST CASE SCENARIO? A nice new colour to add to the collection?
> ...


Ill answer that but not using reptiles as tbh dogs are my niche,
Staffords were inbred a long long time ago as with most KC dogs.
Now we have testing for the defective things that can be wrong with a stafford that has been lne bred with carriers of these defects so guess what we do? 
We dont use the affecteds or carriers from that line for breeding thus resulting only the healthist animals are being bred from.
They have been line bred to the highest quality not only removing the affect genes but also bred to remove bad hips, bad eyes and a lot more
That is the reason I line breed! Because mixing with a gene that you know nothing about is more dangerous than mixing a gene that you know for a fact is clean!


----------



## Faith (May 17, 2007)

Johelian said:


> I really dont see what this has to do with anything; saving a human life is now on par with breeding pets?


No you said you diagree with unnatural breedings, thats as unnatural as your going to get.
The point i am getting to is if you disagree with the morphs or sizes coming from those "unnatrual" breedings then you cant just stop at saying well for animals its wrong but if its to save a human life its not!


----------



## PSGeckos (Jul 15, 2007)

sparkle said:


> can i just ask
> 
> cos im not up on morphs really... well not leos and royals
> 
> ...


Sparkle as yet we don't know what is causing it, we we're very open about the Enigmas we hatched which had these issues, we still have our vet on board and he will be having another affected Enigma next week to look at, the first one had complications and he was unable to do a post mortem and research on.

As far as i'm aware we are the only UK breeders activley trying to seek an answer to the Enigma issue.
So hopefully this would quash any thoughts of money, money, money as we are very concerned and fell the need for answers to prevent this continuing.
Finding out what is causing these symptoms and why these symptoms are happening is two massively seperate issues.

What i find offencsive is that people, like yourself are still scaremongering that it is a line bred issue - i would be grateful (as i'm sure the majority of Enigma breeders would be) if until there are 100% conclusive answers that speculation isn't fuelled.


----------



## sparkle (Mar 21, 2007)

PSGeckos said:


> Sparkle as yet we don't know what is causing it, we we're very open about the Enigmas we hatched which had these issues, we still have our vet on board and he will be having another affected Enigma next week to look at, the first one had complications and he was unable to do a post mortem and research on.
> 
> As far as i'm aware we are the only UK breeders activley trying to seek an answer to the Enigma issue.
> So hopefully this would quash any thoughts of money, money, money as we are very concerned and fell the need for answers to prevent this continuing.
> ...


 
excuse me im not scaremongering.. where did that come from... and there are plenty of other people wondering and you dont single them out...

i pointed out there was an excellent disussion a while back.. PLENTY of people WONDERED , PONDERED, QUESTIONED or indeed to use your word speculated.. WHY.... i didnt say i knew the answer but the minute you tell me im not allowed to discuss and speculate something that becomes a tad controlling does it not... and repressing

I can do any of the above at any time and noone has the right to tell me not to... Just because you dont like that fact people wont stop.. I asked a basic question... if I worded it to your dislike I appologise.. I didnt start this thread and i dont profess to be an expert.. 


there are plenty of people who DONT think any enigma should be bred.. I am NOT one of them and I certainly would not have the audacity to tell anyone what to or not to do.. Im not telling you what to do so I would politely ask you not to tell me..

I think you have overeacted .... I know fine well when I am being emotional and Ive admitted in the past when ive went overboard with posting or got the wrong end of the stick and ran with something... but this wasnt one of those times... I was simply enquiring about various issues ive notived in breeding like with the spider or the enigma.. and I used them only as examples not as damning evidence of horror stories... and I was asking IF it was line bred and HOW the genetics worked to inform myself further as I wasnt sure.. so I certainly wasnt trying to scupper anyones breeding..

I ASKED THIS AND I QUOTE


and why are enigmas prone to what seems to be neuro problems.. is it potentially inbreeding as such. although that term is bad i know...

NOw as far as I can read that back i didnt say it WAS i said IS IT ... complete difference really....

and i havent nor stil DO NOT think you are in it for the money if anything you are being very responsible and I have told you I admire this in PMs..


Are you going to start telling anyone who talks about it or starts a thread about it not to... come on now?? 

when something goes wrong it not just YOU who chooses who MAY OR MAY not speculate.. for instance vets etc...

I am allowed to speculate, wonder and ponder on whatever I want..

to speculate is to wonder... to wonder is to seek answers ...and to seek is to find..

and isnt that what we want

TO FIND ANSWERS


----------



## incrisis (Jun 15, 2008)

I am not a lizard owner, well not yet, and find this whole thing fascinating, however as with a lot of posts I have read covering topics similar to this it always seems to descend very quickly from debate to arguement.

Rereading the original post it seems that Rou only finds it ludicrous to her ears as she doesn't fully understand the topic, and if you read the second paragraph she is asking for people to explain to her what it is all about.

Ok, after the initial arguement people did, but surely it would have been easier to do that in the first place?

Maybe starting a poll wasn't the best way to ask the questions though



Rou said:


> Right I have studied into fair bit into biology and genetics including reproduction and so on. Never have I came across anything that sounds so ludicrous to my ears as inbreeding reptiles (ie leopard geckos and corn snakes) to get a desired morph or desired trait from a morph.
> 
> Can someone please explain to me *with references and proof of research* how this is possible when aiming to produce healthy offspring. I for one without knowing the positives (ie desired traits become stronger) to this find it an awful thing to encourage amongst animals of any kind.
> 
> ...


----------



## missk (Jan 14, 2008)

Johelian said:


> Why do you think that the climate is changing so rapidly? Its certainly not down to anything nature has done; its down to our own refusal to work alongside nature, and will lead to all of our undoing. Humans are changing the plants climate far too quickly for evolution to have any significant effect;


To go off topic a tad...

The earth's climate has changed as rapidly as this in the geological past (causes are much argued, but involve large volcanic extrusions like the Deccan Trapps, release of methane hydrates which quickly convert to the greenhouse gas CO2, bolide impact etc etc), and it has, in fact, helped to drive evolution through mass extinctions etc. Evolution can happen quickly due to things like recessive alleles 'hiding' which can give an animal advantage in rapidly changing climate, and increased mutagenic rays from the sun can also fuel evolution. 

Check out the rapid warming at the paleocene-eocene boundary etc. Also went to an interesting few seminars on climate change by leaders in the field wo were retiring and weren't afraid to speak against the scaremongering masses, and their conclusions are we are headed for another ice age. 

Yes we are contributing to climate change, but we are not the sole factor. Our planet has dealt with rapid climate change before, will again, and again long after we as a race are gone...
I'm off to buy shares in skidoos :whistling2:


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

Johelian said:


> Youre comparing a lizard to a person. A person would say "I shouldnt breed with my relative, its not a good idea for the offspring". .


a person would say... 'i won't breed with my parents, siblings or children because it's wrong' although as my cousins aren't blood relatives its perfectly fine and legal to breed with them and even marry them'.

Although to the subject in question my answer is... meh, who cares!

Lizards and snakes probably breed to siblings, children and parents in the wild. They breed to reproduce, they're not forced together. If they had the ability to feel that incest (or even know it existed) then they just wouldn't breed with each other.
I very much doubt wild snakes and lizards are nomads who wander across the plains covering hundreds and thousands of miles in their lifetimes meeting strangers. For hundreds / thousands of years they mate with whatever partner allows them to at mating time.
All these morphs that people complain about will be about in the wild as well but as its so vast an area they've not been seen. Do you think a Pakistani wandering through the wildnerness will be too bothered about seeing a different coloured leopard gecko to the one he normally sees? even if he is do you think he'll be on the internet telling the world about it? no, because seeing leos is common to them.

There'll be morphs out there that have happened in the wild that haven't been produced in captivity yet. It's just that nobody has seen them yet.

If the snake / lizard is healthy who really cares too much if its inbred? IT doesn't so what's it got to do with us?


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

Johelian said:


> Again, I dont know why I need to reiterate - youre purposefully breeding for recessive genes. Whether its for a disorder, a disability or a colour, its still a recessive trait purposefully being exploited


What if someone discovered that roughly one quarter of the Monkey-Tailed Skink offspring they breed out of a specific pair of adults are babies with a stronger feeding response than usual - and that breeding one strong feeder to another strong feeder produces all strongly feeding offspring? Wouldn't you be interested in introducing these strong feeding lines into your group of animals? Wouldn't you be breeding to perpetuate that strong feeding response?

Congratulations, you've just exploited a recessive trait.

Just because it's not a colour or pattern or visible body morph doesn't mean it is not an inheritable trait - nor does it mean it can't be a recessive.

In Royal Pythons, a substantial number of the mutations are in fact dominant or codominant - wild-type is recessive to, for example, Spider and Pinstripe. One of these DOMINANT traits has a detrimental effect on the snake's balance and/or neurological development (not sure if anyone's ever dissected a wobbling spider to find out what's broken and what's right) ... and one of them does not appear to have any effect other than changing the pattern on the animal.

Funny enough, though.. Spider royals are apparently ALSO very 'outgoing' for a royal and more reliable feeders than normals, too. 



> Whats THE BEST CASE SCENARIO? A nice new colour to add to the collection?


A species of animals that has enough intrinsic value for fickle and self-interested humans to want to keep it alive and to preserve natural populations in the hope that something new will crop up that they can find and perpetuate, perhaps? A colour pattern that has beneficial effects on the animal (it's possible - for example, rats with unbanded hairs and/or with white patches are calmer in captivity than wildtype agouti animals and no white patches - definitely a benefit to captive animals).



> Actually, I agree with you - a recessive trait isnt always negative. However, the potential for harmful traits is higher when inbreeding, and I dont know personally of any positive otherwise-recessive traits other than colour (which I dont consider important enough to be positive) that have emerged in leopard geckos. So why do it?


It's possible that a beneficial non-colour recessive exists but just hasn't been identified yet - simply because it's much easier to tell you have a "morph" gene when you can SEE it. 

As I said, if you noticed consistent 'good' results in a certain line of animals, wouldn't you breed that line (and possibly inbreed that line) to increase the rate of positive results you have?



> And yes, you could be right - the colours we know today may have resulted from one distinctive split in the past, and gradually become the norm over many years. Ill agree on that. But I dont believe that it came about as a result of inbreeding,


But that's one mechanism of how speciation occurs - an isolated population breeding amongst themselves, where mutations that are not deleterious are allowed to prosper within that isolated population.


----------



## Gecko_Sean (Aug 15, 2007)

Thanks SSthisto i just learned a whole load for that post


----------



## stopstealingmyname (May 31, 2008)

great thread :2thumb:

personally i think that as long as the strongest healthiest animals are used for inbreeding therefore improving the health/pattern/colour I cant really see a problem .
i see the issue of inbreeding as something that is seen as socially unacceptable for humans but the fact is a large proportion of animals would do it in the wild naturally with no real ill effect.

ps. sparkle I have attached earlobes to and love an argument :lol2:


----------



## DeanThorpe (Apr 9, 2006)

I didnt even know what attached earlobes were..although obviously i had an idea [just wondered where erm..is attached or unnatached that shouldnt be/usually isnt...but its ok i asked trese [sparkle, i need to look at your ears if we ever meet ok?]

I think one thing that isnt gettin mentioned enough is inbreeding child to parent to define a morph before outbreeding i dont think has caused any problems ever has it? least not due to the relation. 

also.. inbreeding species out of laziness [buy a pair of beardies, brother and sister and house together etc] is wrong....but you could again say.. as long as those babies are then outbred then no harm will come... although like daddycool who said about his chams...there would be no genuine reason to breed related chams together...but i bet if soemthing did pop up [like a new pattern...or like also mentioned- feeding response- then it would be worth a second thought?
Obviously the futher you take it the higher the chance of a deformity or whatever so is it maybe about limits?


However if its done on purpose with the opinion of "yeh a few babaies may hatch deformed but hey ho, we can just kill those or theyll die anyway" then i think its bad...again though im all for the greater good...but its a bit icky for me.

I think its great that ppl have morals, and object to things..even if it doesnt make sense to me or anyone else... if you think somethings wrong then voice it... although you gota do it with your "learn something new and maybe change your opinion" cap on.


----------



## -EJ (Jan 20, 2008)

You need to do a little more research.

There is inbreeding and out breeding... both have their advantages.

When inbreeding there are the strong genes represented in addition to the genes of the morph you are trying to create. Outbreeding brings in those strong genes... in addition to different weak genes.

Look up bottleneck in biology. It is a naturally occuring source of selective breeding... I don't remember any negative effects associated with this occurance.

ed



Rou said:


> Right I have studied into fair bit into biology and genetics including reproduction and so on. Never have I came across anything that sounds so ludicrous to my ears as inbreeding reptiles (ie leopard geckos and corn snakes) to get a desired morph or desired trait from a morph.
> 
> Can someone please explain to me *with references and proof of research* how this is possible when aiming to produce healthy offspring. I for one without knowing the positives (ie desired traits become stronger) to this find it an awful thing to encourage amongst animals of any kind.
> 
> ...


----------



## mrstu1973 (May 27, 2008)

Interesting debate guys.....and it's helping pass the hours of my night-shift. Anyway, I thought I'd have a read up on the subject. Here's a few links for anyone interested in this:

http://www.vmsherp.com/LCInbreeding.htm

That one is by someone in the reptile industry.

An investigation of inbreeding depression and purg...[Heredity. 2007] - PubMed Result

Dispersal and Habitat Selection, Sinervo

These were written by research types.

SpringerLink - Journal Article

And this one talks specifically about skinks in the wild. I found lots of others that were quite interesting, but I put these on because they are all pretty short.

For those who can't be bothered reading: the one about the skinks says they're sex mad and will do it with anyone. The third one down says that a 2.5cm reptile was recorded as travelling 1.5KM from it's birth-place (the equivalent of a human travelling 120KM) to either a: avoid inbreeding, or b:colonize a new habitat...Personally, I think both. The other 2 links are a sort of pro/con thing....

For those unsure about all this, as I was, type in 'reptile inbreeding' on Google, it'll keep you occupied for hours.


----------



## -EJ (Jan 20, 2008)

I don't see a mention of parthenogenisis in lizards... the ultimate inbreeding.

ed



mrstu1973 said:


> Interesting debate guys.....and it's helping pass the hours of my night-shift. Anyway, I thought I'd have a read up on the subject. Here's a few links for anyone interested in this:
> 
> The Learning Center - Inbreeding Discussion
> 
> ...


----------



## sparkle (Mar 21, 2007)

stopstealingmyname said:


> great thread :2thumb:
> 
> personally i think that as long as the strongest healthiest animals are used for inbreeding therefore improving the health/pattern/colour I cant really see a problem .
> i see the issue of inbreeding as something that is seen as socially unacceptable for humans but the fact is a large proportion of animals would do it in the wild naturally with no real ill effect.
> ...


right get yer arse on msn...


the gloves are off..

LOL


----------



## -EJ (Jan 20, 2008)

Maybe it's an american thing... but... huhhhh????

Ed



sparkle said:


> right get yer arse on msn...
> 
> 
> the gloves are off..
> ...


----------



## sparkle (Mar 21, 2007)

-EJ said:


> Maybe it's an american thing... but... huhhhh????
> 
> Ed


 
yeah dont worry ... im scottish you're american..

dont bother trying to understand , LOL

my mate lives in texas and im totally confusing to her...


----------



## -EJ (Jan 20, 2008)

ahhhh... that explains a great deal... your Scotch.

ed



sparkle said:


> yeah dont worry ... im scottish you're american..
> 
> dont bother trying to understand , LOL
> 
> my mate lives in texas and im totally confusing to her...


----------



## Johelian (Nov 25, 2006)

Faith said:


> No you said you diagree with unnatural breedings, thats as unnatural as your going to get.
> The point i am getting to is if you disagree with the morphs or sizes coming from those "unnatrual" breedings then you cant just stop at saying well for animals its wrong but if its to save a human life its not!


Well, I dont think I did say that - can you find something that says that specifically? Or if that just an assumption you have made?

I wonder, why do you insist on equating human life - that is, saving someones life - with breeding PETS FOR COLOUR? They arent the same thing - and if you think they are, you clearly have some skewed priorities. Cant you understand that breeding a pet to produce new colours isnt the same as genetic research to save human lives? Youre not saving anyone, youre doing it for pleasure, so reiterating this is totally pointless Im afraid. I havent stated to my knowledge that Im against "unnatural" breedings, Im against the potential risk of intentionally polluting our captive bred bloodlines for the sake of a fad. That has nothing to do with the analogies you keep insisting on bringing up. I think you have completely misunderstood the points Im putting forward, and as I cant think of a way to make them more simple, I dont know quite what were supposed to do now.



> Lizards and snakes probably breed to siblings, children and parents in the wild. They breed to reproduce, they're not forced together. If they had the ability to feel that incest (or even know it existed) then they just wouldn't breed with each other.
> I very much doubt wild snakes and lizards are nomads who wander across the plains covering hundreds and thousands of miles in their lifetimes meeting strangers. For hundreds / thousands of years they mate with whatever partner allows them to at mating time.
> All these morphs that people complain about will be about in the wild as well but as its so vast an area they've not been seen. Do you think a Pakistani wandering through the wildnerness will be too bothered about seeing a different coloured leopard gecko to the one he normally sees? even if he is do you think he'll be on the internet telling the world about it? no, because seeing leos is common to them.


As Ive already mentioned (and I believe someone else did too), reptiles DO scatter to new areas. Ive already used monkey tails as an example, where mature animals (particularly females) will vacate an area and find new territories with unrelated animals. Thats not a coincidence.

No, these morphs wont be in the wild - because these genetic combinations have been developed specifically in captivity. The possibility of the exact pairings to produce morphs occuring naturally would be miniscule. Plus, as already mentioned, abnormalities are naturally culled by predators because they cant fit their niche. Its only in captivity that these morphs are cultivated, but to what end? Again, you cant possibly know the outcome of going against nature.



> What if someone discovered that roughly one quarter of the Monkey-Tailed Skink offspring they breed out of a specific pair of adults are babies with a stronger feeding response than usual - and that breeding one strong feeder to another strong feeder produces all strongly feeding offspring? Wouldn't you be interested in introducing these strong feeding lines into your group of animals? Wouldn't you be breeding to perpetuate that strong feeding response?
> 
> Congratulations, you've just exploited a recessive trait.
> 
> ...


Again, Im looking specifically at inbreeding for colour, and I have said that time and time again...but that aside, no - I dont think its worth the risk inbreeding them, and that is a fact. Pairing it with an unrelated, super-healthy animal would be infinitely preferable in my opinion. Sadly, I think morph breeders are out for the quickest possible result personally, so perhaps theyre not willing to breed these traits out over several generations.

With regards to negative dominant traits...really that just emphasises my point for me. With detrimental dominant traits present in morph breeding stock (let me ask you - are there any known genetic disorders in breeders dealing with wild-caught or otherwise non-designer stock?) its already evident that theres a problem with these breeding programmes even before we look at the recessive traits that will be brought to light. Does it make it any better that you have a dominant defect in your stocks genetics?



> A species of animals that has enough intrinsic value for fickle and self-interested humans to want to keep it alive and to preserve natural populations in the hope that something new will crop up that they can find and perpetuate, perhaps? A colour pattern that has beneficial effects on the animal (it's possible - for example, rats with unbanded hairs and/or with white patches are calmer in captivity than wildtype agouti animals and no white patches - definitely a benefit to captive animals).


I said "in the animals best interests" 

I wonder why that is...since I sincerely doubt that its the development of some kind of "good natured" gene, I would be interested to know exactly why this is. I would hate to think that humans have bred an animal to be more "tame" at the expense of lifespan or something similar.



> It's possible that a beneficial non-colour recessive exists but just hasn't been identified yet - simply because it's much easier to tell you have a "morph" gene when you can SEE it.
> 
> As I said, if you noticed consistent 'good' results in a certain line of animals, wouldn't you breed that line (and possibly inbreed that line) to increase the rate of positive results you have?


Ive already talked about this above, but I thought Id mention it again - no. 

No-one answered my question.


----------



## GazEmm (Jul 11, 2006)

Johelian - I'm curious as to whether you believe problems do arrise from inbreeding for the first few generations? Also, how much more likely are problems to arrise with inbreeding a first generation brother and sister as opposed to unrelated pairs??

I can accept the argument that inbreeding can have ill effects, but i can also accept this normally occurs after its been done for a few generations. From what I can gather the first few generation of inbreeding doesnt seem to cause any problems...i see umpteen morphed animals for sale every day (every hour even) that have all resulted from inbreeding, yet there are never any problems health-wise with them (with the *odd* exception).


----------



## zemanski (Jun 15, 2008)

I think there are levels of everything and I think responsible breeders will introduce new genetic lines to complement their breeding programs and strengthen both the genetic diversity of their animals and introduce specific morphs as needed - hence the lively trade across international borders (US, europe) in spite of the cost.

In the UK breeding BDs seems to be more small scale than in the states so perhaps the genetic issues are more relevant here. In the states, especially in the south where the dragons can live outdoors or in green houses rather than vivs, people can keep hundreds so the genetic mix will be more varied and give more choices for the breeder to improve the morphs without running the risk of weakening the line with constant inbreeding.

I have a close asian friend whose family believes, like many from their region, that cousin marriage is essential to keep the family's wealth at least stable.
She married her cousin, and most of her predecessors married theirs, and they now have serious problems with very high levels of developmental issues. My friend lost 2 babies because of it and then gave birth to a son with serious health problems and autism. Only 1 in 4 of her children have escaped (similar levels in other relatives) and my friend is now fighting her family to avoid another cousin marriage for her daughter having had genetic counseling. 

This happens in all species at some level - in phasmids, which I breed, it results in nymphs that cannot moult properly or have deformities quite quickly (the short lifespan means they breed at a much faster rate so you can get through several generations in a year) so I buy in eggs from other breeders regularly and sell mine on (actually, we mainly swap).

Trouble is, you can't really tell who is being sensible and looking out for the long term health of their animals so personally, although I have no problem with breeding for morphs as long as it doesn't go too far, I would buy my breeding pairs from different sources so at least I know I'm starting out with a pair that are unrelated.


----------



## mybeardeddragons (Oct 1, 2007)

I always say don't breed brother to sister - the reason being is that most people don't realise that they are buying reptiles which are related. They buy a pair, they breed, then they sell on the youngsters - and the whole thing could start again.

Indiscriminate breeding and continuous inbreeding cannot be healthy - if people are discouraged from breeding brother to sister, and responsible breeders don't sell mixed pairs from the same clutch together, surely this is to everyone's best interest. 

Genetics should be left to those who understand them.


----------



## laranicheallaigh (Apr 19, 2008)

:lol2: I just read this whole thread and its very interesting but totally confusing as i only gcse level understanding of genetics.

Because of this lack of knowledge i dont think i really believe if it was right or wrong.

What we should do is stop comparing lizards to humans because then we could compare breeding stronger Beardies (for example) and killing off the weaker ones to what the nazi's did to people with disabilities during the war, which of course is just stupid.

I do understand from a financial point of veiw that it be alot more difficult for bredders to sell on deformed beardies, in my work we have an 8 month old beardie whos been in the shop his whole life because no-one will buy him because of his missing foot. From a moral point of veiw killing weak living things is wrong,we should really want to care and help them rather than cull them but then again many animals are euthanised every day to help them rid thier suffering, which i think okay as it brings them peace.

I can see this i sa touchy subject but to be honest inbreeding as brought us so many beautiful morphs and wonderful well loved pets, so i think i swing boths ways a bit on this subject... :blowup: all this confusions making my head sore lol


----------



## Johelian (Nov 25, 2006)

GazEmm said:


> Johelian - I'm curious as to whether you believe problems do arrise from inbreeding for the first few generations? Also, how much more likely are problems to arrise with inbreeding a first generation brother and sister as opposed to unrelated pairs??
> 
> I can accept the argument that inbreeding can have ill effects, but i can also accept this normally occurs after its been done for a few generations. From what I can gather the first few generation of inbreeding doesnt seem to cause any problems...i see umpteen morphed animals for sale every day (every hour even) that have all resulted from inbreeding, yet there are never any problems health-wise with them (with the *odd* exception).


I think my biggest issue is that its a calculated risk thats taken for absolutely no reason other than for commercial experimentation. I can better understand this for a genuine purpose; for example, I know a breeder of parrots that had 2 of approximately 5 or 6 birds known in the world. The pair were related, but - as there were no other birds to work with - he was forced to work with a related pair to try and conserve the species. This is far from ideal and still a little murky in my mind, but you can see the genuine need in this scenario.

When breeding for "designer" morphs I dont understand the "need". 

First-generation siblings can be heterozygous for recessive alleles inherited from the parents - breeding them together will result in a portion of the offspring being homozygous for that trait. While this works for colour, it can also work for traits damaging to the health of the individual. As youre purposefully putting together two animals with potentially the same recessive trait, youre taking a higher risk than pairing unrelated animals (in which similar genetic build is extremely unlikely to be found). All in all, I personally dont think its worth the risk for a "designer" morph; but then, Im not a big breeder or collector intent on building a "collection" of colours.



> I can see this i sa touchy subject but to be honest inbreeding as brought us so many beautiful morphs


And therein is my bugbear with this entire argument


----------



## laranicheallaigh (Apr 19, 2008)

Whats wrong with having good-lookin pets if there healthy n well cared for??: victory:


----------



## Smoggie (May 2, 2008)

Wow,just read the thread..great for debate and excellent insight/info.
I don't pretend to know a great deal about gentics/breeding I only know what I've learned/discovered and like to expand my knowledge hence ready this thread.
Having kept only "normals" in the past.(Knight Anoles,Green Igs etc) I've just got back into reps after a long lay off(10years!!!) I was astounded by the amount of morphs etc forsale these days,beit leos ,corns Royal etc.
I've recently picked up two Leos, both morphs, both from different lines. A Tremper (SHCT)and Bells(Tang Albino). These have obviously been breed,breed again to create what I have now..(which I must admit I picked on colour!!!)
from originally wild caught specimens that had the albinism gene..
I personally think that if they are healthy, show now apparent defects and behave normally then inbreeding to an extent is o.k
I wish to breed mine but want to breed from a different breeder hopefully different lines/parentage.
The whole inbreeding/genetics does take a little consideration when you step back and think wow, mam and son have just done it!? 
Having said that, natural inbreeding does take place in isolated Island species, such as the rattleless rattlers of the West coast of US..they are ineffect defective..but no ill effects are seen as yet (as yet only been studied for a short period)as this is a selection process to allow hunting and no natural predators to need to warn with rattles.
I too have a pedigree dog, she was a rescue dog (Whippet) I know for a fact these are long lived animals for a pedigree dog anyway(14-16 year old) they have little in the way of natural defects,but ours suffers from an enlarged heart so is unlikely to see 12 let alone 16!! But this is nature as the vet says..


----------



## gaz (Oct 5, 2005)

did no one read my post from a couple of days back?? for professional breeders such as myself the "need" to produce morphs is driven by the customer and of course the need to pay bills/tax/etc
simple as that really,seems to apply to all species bred at some point.
when the general reptile buying public stop demanding morphs then breeders such as myself will stop investing our time and money in producing them.
regards "again" gaz


----------



## gazz (Dec 9, 2006)

I'd just like to say that no one hear i'm sure are not on about a life time of inbreeding for ever staying one one line.Where on about inbreeding for line 2 generation 3 maximum.Then out breeding maybe couple times then back in again.Where not on about going down the line of breeding a pair,then breeding there offspring together,then breeding there offspring together,then breeding there offspring together,then breeding there offspring together'etc'etc'etc.This type of one track inbreeding will weaken the genepool leading to problems sooner or later.For any one that point blank say I WILL NEVER INBREED MY REPTILES.I'm sorry but you haven't been teasted on that statment yet.Try haveing that opinion when your blue tongue,monkey tail,gila monster,beared lizard,beared dragon,frilled lizard,chameleon speices,fiji iguana,black headed python,woma python'etc'etc'etc throws a colour mutation like recessive albino,hypo,or anery'etc'etc the only way to harness these trait is to inbreed at least a couple times.As long as there is no harmfull genetic trait small amount of inbreeding will not be a issue.

Any genetic mutation can work in the wild.Mother natures law is if it works you live if it dosen't you die.Some times it work so well that you become a locally pecific race or you own full speices in time.Like in miami Anerythristic corn are very common due to them being blacker in colour and most of the roads are black and when they bask they are harder for preditors to see then the red corns.


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

Johelian said:


> As youre purposefully putting together two animals with potentially the same recessive trait, youre taking a higher risk than pairing unrelated animals (in which similar genetic build is extremely unlikely to be found).


Not entirely true when you're talking about recessives. As I said... I can trace my own lineage back sixteen generations with no common relatives. And my parents STILL each brought a copy of the same essentially-recessive gene (colourblindness) to their unrelated pairing. 

Also note that if the recessive trait is BETTER than a dominant version of the same allele that will be the more common trait in the population. Just because it's "recessive" doesn't mean it's BAD. It just means that there is an allele that is dominant to that trait.


----------



## Johelian (Nov 25, 2006)

gaz said:


> did no one read my post from a couple of days back?? for professional breeders such as myself the "need" to produce morphs is driven by the customer and of course the need to pay bills/tax/etc
> simple as that really,seems to apply to all species bred at some point.
> when the general reptile buying public stop demanding morphs then breeders such as myself will stop investing our time and money in producing them.
> regards "again" gaz


But thats the point entirely - thats not a genuine "need", its a recreational need, and one that I personally dont think should be pandered to. However, since the public are so keen to have a "designer" colour, we're willing to take these risks. That doesnt justify it for me.

Gaz, I think youre the only one thats been willing to answer this, so thanks.



> Try haveing that opinion when your blue tongue,monkey tail,gila monster,beared lizard,beared dragon,frilled lizard,chameleon speices,fiji iguana,black headed python,woma python'etc'etc'etc throws a colour mutation like recessive albino,hypo,or anery'etc'etc the only way to harness these trait is to inbreed at least a couple times.As long as there is no harmfull genetic trait small amount of inbreeding will not be a issue.


Actually, I will have that opinion even if I get a reptile with an unsual colour - because, and again I say it for about the fiftieth time, Im not willing to risk inbreeding for the sake of colour. End of. If people want to capitalise on this commercially then thats their perogative and clearly their values are different to mine. Ive said it before, but morph-breeders want the quickest results in the shortest time. I personally dont believe that thats the best method, and that is my strong feeling.

But Ive said all this already, and Im getting fed up of replying to people who clearly havent tried to understand my opinion. At the end of the day, I dont believe inbreeding for morphs is justifyable. Honestly, I dont expect a forum of morph-owners to sympathise; however, Im not happy to see the starter of the thread battered by others for her opinion either.


----------



## Gecko_Sean (Aug 15, 2007)

Johelian said:


> Actually, I will have that opinion even if I get a reptile with an unsual colour - because, and again I say it for about the fiftieth time, Im not willing to risk inbreeding for the sake of colour. End of. If people want to capitalise on this commercially then thats their perogative and clearly their values are different to mine. Ive said it before, but morph-breeders want the quickest results in the shortest time. I personally dont believe that thats the best method, and that is my strong feeling.


So if you had 100 eggs and one one of your eggs hatched a glowing coloured orange/blue/green whatever lizard that had never been seen, you wouldn't even try to see what it was? try and make others? Wouldn't wonder what kind of genes have made this lizard this colour? 

i know its unrealistic but it was just an example

Also you may have said but to you agree with other imbreedings? like dogs to create all these kinds of dogs? fish to create the biggest, strongest more colourful? Rats for the different kinds? Do you own any animals that have been bred this way to create them? etc? sorry if you have answered that its a big thread.


----------



## Mal (Jul 22, 2007)

Inbreeding is a natural occurance in many species of animal. In some areas without inbreeding at some stage then the animals would have ceased to exist. I am thinking of animals that are found only in small isolated locations. Inbreeding with regards to captive reptile breeding doesnt occur out of necessity but through desire to improve/enhance bloodlines and to unlock that illusive new morph. Obviously if there was no interest in developing new morphs, if people werent drawn to the lizard with brighter colours or more pronounced marking then there would be little point in spending hundreds if not thousands of pounds trying to breed that extra special animal. The important factor is that the process should cause no harm to the animal as an individual or to the species itself. Those who breed the animals should irrespective of breeding outcomes be aiming to give their animals the highest quality of care to keep their animals in the best of physical health. If carried out responsibably a breeding programme that involves an element of inbreeding should be of no detriment to the animals involved. It could be argued that such breeding programmes are unnatural. However it could also be argued that putting an animal in a cage/vivarium, no matter how spacious and well suited to the animal is unnatural as is feeding it insects it would never come accross in the wild. Thus providing no harm is caused to the animals as result, I have no concerns with inbreeding/ line breeding. This is a very heated subject, but then keeping animals in captivity in itself can be a very heated subject. We are all entitled to our views, opinions and beliefs and we should agree to accept and respect the values of others. The important thing at the end of the day is mentally and physically healthy animals who are in receipt of the best of care and live in the best of conditions.


----------



## GazEmm (Jul 11, 2006)

Johelian said:


> But thats the point entirely - thats not a genuine "need", its a recreational need, and one that I personally dont think should be pandered to. However, since the public are so keen to have a "designer" colour, we're willing to take these risks. That doesnt justify it for me.


I dont think you can really go down the 'wants' and 'needs' route with this, as there are SOOO many things humans 'want' to do that impact wildlife/animals/nature etc and i'd bet you have been involved somehow with something that has effected one of these...keeping animals in the first place being one of them!! Many people will see keeping any reptile (and most animals), regardless of morph, as an unneccessary thing to do, which i suppose puts you in the same group as people who use inbreeding...that being using an animal for your personal wants.

Fair play mind, this has been a really interesting thread and it's going to end (hopefully) on a nice note with people having to agree to disagree. I, for one, have no problems with inbreeding (for whatever reason) as long as it is done responsibily...and that's my final thought :2thumb:


----------



## Johelian (Nov 25, 2006)

Gecko_Sean said:


> So if you had 100 eggs and one one of your eggs hatched a glowing coloured orange/blue/green whatever lizard that had never been seen, you wouldn't even try to see what it was? try and make others? Wouldn't wonder what kind of genes have made this lizard this colour?
> 
> i know its unrealistic but it was just an example
> 
> Also you may have said but to you agree with other imbreedings? like dogs to create all these kinds of dogs? fish to create the biggest, strongest more colourful? Rats for the different kinds? Do you own any animals that have been bred this way to create them? etc? sorry if you have answered that its a big thread.


Ive mentioned it before I think, but I can understand peoples curiosity; but its this drive to produce so many of a new colour so quickly that results in morph-breeders inbreeding so quickly to try and capitalise on it. I personally dont believe this is the best practise when breeding. So, no, I wouldnt breed a glowing lizard to any of its relatives; I dont care enough about colour patterns to justify it. For an example, I have a highly-unusually coloured male monkey tail; I wouldnt breed its offspring back to it as I dont want a generation of inbred animals to follow. I might pair it with an unrelated animal with colour reminiscent of the original, but that would be as far as Id be willing to take it. But then, Im not driven by the entire morph craze.

And yes, I feel the same way about dogs.



> I dont think you can really go down the 'wants' and 'needs' route with this, as there are SOOO many things humans 'want' to do that impact wildlife/animals/nature etc and i'd bet you have been involved somehow with something that has effected one of these...keeping animals in the first place being one of them!! Many people will see keeping any reptile (and most animals), regardless of morph, as an unneccessary thing to do, which i suppose puts you in the same group as people who use inbreeding...that being using an animal for your personal wants.


Theres a very definite line between maintaining animals in captivity and genetically customising animals in captivity, and really I think only people who are pro-morphing would argue otherwise. Its the same as the people who keep trying to argue that conservation is unnatural and therefore on par with inbreeding for morphs - they are hugely removed from one another, and I cant imagine why people would even begin to equate them. To me, its like (but not exactly the same as) docking a dogs tail to make it "designer". Sure it doesnt cause any direct pain, but can you guarantee that it doesnt cause any harm ultimately? By harm we can refer to an actual incidence of genetic disorder directly related to once occurance of inbreeding, or an end result further down the line that can be traced back to inbreeding. I personally think theres a lot of room for issues when inbreeding becomes a part of practice.

Im going to summarise my stance in one line: I dont believe inbreeding for the sake of colour variation should be practised. I think that might make things a bit clearer. On that note, I dont really know if theres anymore to be said to be honest. Feel free to PM me if you have any more issues with that.


----------



## spikemu (Jul 5, 2008)

Faith said:


> How on earth do you think most of the morphs were created?


there is such thing as genetic mutation i.e how bats evolved from land mammals. 

but i get what you say that is the most obvious way.

yea inbreeding can be bad in any living thing animal or human as it can inbreed alot of bad traits.

if the first albino was male surely when u breed him you should incubate for more males then keep repeating but making the temp abit closer to the female temp ( im not quite sure what that is tbh) so theres more and more chance of getting females. so that you dont necessaryily have to inbreed. (just a thought) :lol2:

but yea this sounds like stuff ive been learning in college. its just a huge debate. 

.tbh the morphs arnt worth it really normal leos are so much better (in my opinion) than any of the other morphs you cant beat the original.


----------



## Gecko_Sean (Aug 15, 2007)

Johelian said:


> Ive mentioned it before I think, but I can understand peoples curiosity; but its this drive to produce so many of a new colour so quickly that results in morph-breeders inbreeding so quickly to try and capitalise on it. I personally dont believe this is the best practise when breeding. So, no, I wouldnt breed a glowing lizard to any of its relatives; I dont care enough about colour patterns to justify it. For an example, I have a highly-unusually coloured male monkey tail; I wouldnt breed its offspring back to it as I dont want a generation of inbred animals to follow. I might pair it with an unrelated animal with colour reminiscent of the original, but that would be as far as Id be willing to take it. But then, Im not driven by the entire morph craze.
> 
> And yes, I feel the same way about dogs.


Oh right i get what you mean. Its not an unreasonable opinion and i understand what you mean (finally lol). Each to their own... but i just cant resist a pretty looking leo


----------



## DippyDazza (May 5, 2008)

This debate could go on for years and year as i expect it probably has done in the past. At some point in the evolution of most species in breeding must have occurred to produce them. 

I understand people being apposed to in-breeding for financial gain, i think that is the true debate. 

There is a difference between natural inbreeding and a more perhaps forced in-breeding to produce a desired trait.

Personally i don't see a problem with it, as long as there are no adverse health risks as so many breeders claim there aren't then wheres the harm. 

They are animals after all and don't understand that 'this is my sister'.


----------



## -EJ (Jan 20, 2008)

Inbreeding commonly occurs in the wild... small island populations. Islands do not have to be enclosed by water either... reference some mountian populations of herps.

Also these are pets. There is no more cruelty involved then if outbred... which also can be a bad thing.

There is a study that was brought to my attention but I've never been able to find that determined in mice that it took at least 15 generations of inbreeding before any lethal genes reared their ugly head.


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

-EJ said:


> Inbreeding commonly occurs in the wild... small island populations. Islands do not have to be enclosed by water either... reference some mountian populations of herps.
> 
> Also these are pets. There is no more cruelty involved then if outbred... which also can be a bad thing.
> 
> There is a study that was brought to my attention but I've never been able to find that determined in mice that it took at least 15 generations of inbreeding before any lethal genes reared their ugly head.


Hi Ed, I think the study to which you refer is called "Experimental Inbreeding" by Dr King in 1914. It was at the time suggested that this study contradicted Darwin. However an important thing to note with this study is it wasn't simply unbiased inbreeding experiments, it was selective breeding to create "Goliath" the largest albino rat ever... and so cannot really be used as an ideal study. 

I have a copy if you'd like me to email it to you.

You are also right that outbreeding depression can be as bad as inbreeding depression for certain populations, and there are numerous examples of this.

Im considering writing some facts down about this I think....

Andy


----------



## -EJ (Jan 20, 2008)

The name of the author does ring a bell. I would appreciate the paper if you have it handy... thank you much.



Ed
[email protected]



GlasgowGecko said:


> Hi Ed, I think the study to which you refer is called "Experimental Inbreeding" by Dr King in 1914. It was at the time suggested that this study contradicted Darwin. However an important thing to note with this study is it wasn't simply unbiased inbreeding experiments, it was selective breeding to create "Goliath" the largest albino rat ever... and so cannot really be used as an ideal study.
> 
> I have a copy if you'd like me to email it to you.
> 
> ...


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

-EJ said:


> The name of the author does ring a bell. I would appreciate the paper if you have it handy... thank you much.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Email Sent.

Andy


----------

