# A morph too far



## rum&coke (Apr 19, 2009)

OK not wanting to make this a morph bashing thread as there are plenty of them about and I think we all know there are 3 types of people those that hate them, those that love them and those that don't really care either way.
But I was looking at some of the bearded dragon morphs you know the smooth ones with no spikes and what have you and got to thinking is that not taking it a bit far and breeding out all the recognizable features of that species.
People will often say they disagree with hybrids because it is not a natural species anymore its a man made freak and stuff yet there appears to be no limits when it comes to morphs. I know some are against morphs that have flaws due to there breeding such as spider royals and some leopard geckos and that is where some draw the line. But my question is how far can you go in breeding out certain traits and features of a animal until it becomes nothing like the wild type at all. Is there a line in the sand or is it OK to create a lizard/snake that has virtually nothing in common with its wild type.
Like I said this is not about bashing morphs more a question to people who breed morphs as to how far they would go.


----------



## gazz (Dec 9, 2006)

rum&coke said:


> But my question is how far can you go in breeding out certain traits and features of a animal until it becomes nothing like the wild type at all. Is there a line in the sand or is it OK to create a lizard/snake that has virtually nothing in common with its wild type. Like I said this is not about bashing morphs more a question to people who breed morphs as to how far they would go.


Humans can go way over the line with breeding traits, Dogs for example plus others like the goldfish.

Rrussian carp, The ancestor of the goldfish.









Domestic goldfish expressing traits to the max.









I think the max that reptiles will go is scaless, I dout anyone will breed for legless, tailess, Bulg eyes'etc. 
I'd like to think that scaless is as far as we' go.


----------



## MrMike (Jun 28, 2008)

Morphs are the reason the hobby is getting so popular. I personally do not like the look of Silkback Beardies, but that is my opinion. The gene that causes the lack of scales is naturally occurring, and just happened to pop up in someones collection. There was no selective breeding for the lack of scales, no inbreeding, it is caused by a single mutant gene.

Now, if it was selectively breeding for a trait which is detrimental to the animals health then that is another matter entirely.


----------



## tonkaz0 (Apr 25, 2008)

I think the max that reptiles will go is scaless, I dout anyone will breed for legless, tailess, Bulg eyes'etc. 
I'd like to think that scaless is as far as we' go.[/QUOTE]



I dunno though!, how about instead of having a tail have a full toe including claw!, ok for pointing to where you have just been!, now thats what I call creepy.


----------



## MrMike (Jun 28, 2008)

tonkaz0 said:


> I dunno though!, how about instead of having a tail have a full toe including claw!, ok for pointing to where you have just been!, now thats what I call creepy.
> 
> 
> 
> image


Creepy indeed. But not selectively bred that way surely? A genetic "cock up", one in a million thing.


----------



## tonkaz0 (Apr 25, 2008)

MrMike said:


> Creepy indeed. But not selectively bred that way surely? A genetic "cock up", one in a million thing.


 

I blinking well hope its not a selective breed Mike!, but with all this messing with genetics and trying to create all these new morphs who knows whats going to come out nowadays, I mean we still breed Enigmas (including me) knowing that a percentage of them could have real problems.


----------



## MrMike (Jun 28, 2008)

tonkaz0 said:


> I blinking well hope its not a selective breed Mike!, but with all this messing with genetics and trying to create all these new morphs who knows whats going to come out nowadays, I mean we still breed Enigmas (including me) knowing that a percentage of them could have real problems.


That is true, but breeding two normals together could result in anything as well. I'm not a genetic expert at all (maybe Andy can jump in on this thread?) but I don't think breeding animals with mutant traits increases the risk of more mutant traits occurring.

In previous versions of this thread (more "bashing" and flaming versions) some people haven't distinguished between selectively breeding for undesirable traits and random unfortunate occurrences. If you breed two WC animals and the offspring have an undesired trait you remove them from any breeding program (well, ethically minded people do), and the same if you breed two morphs. If two WC animals produce desirable traits you keep them in your breeding programs.

The problem is, some people like animals "as <insert deity of choice> intended", which is fine, others like the variety of colours and patterns. Both views are equally acceptable.

If you like scaless lizards/snakes, and can give them any specialist care required then IMO that's fine.

As I said above, if the mutation is detrimental to the animals health then it should not be bred from and made to live (if possible) as comfortably as possible.


----------



## SleepyD (Feb 13, 2008)

tonkaz0 said:


> I blinking well hope its not a selective breed Mike!, but with all this messing with genetics and trying to create all these new morphs who knows whats going to come out nowadays, I mean we still breed Enigmas (including me) knowing that a percentage of them could have real problems.


maybe but you and other reputable breeders don't go on to deliberately breed those with visible problems like some so-called 'breeders'.
I know of some who wanted to deliberately breed 'curly tail' and 'frog-eyes' in leos because it looked 'cute' etc with little regard to the health of the leos.


----------



## gazz (Dec 9, 2006)

SleepyD said:


> Curly tail.


When you said curly tail i remembered these.








Link to thred.Curly Tail Leopard Gecko ??? - GeckoForums.net


----------



## SleepyD (Feb 13, 2008)

gazz said:


> When you said curly tail i remembered these.
> image
> Link to thred.Curly Tail Leopard Gecko ??? - GeckoForums.net


*nods* I remember that one ~ they've also been mentioned here in the UK


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

The problem as I see it, is not "can we go too far", it is how do we judge *what* too far *is*? In certain instances, this is pretty simple (these instances are pretty infrequent though... generally only those that are fatal), and in others less so. 

For example, the 'curly tailed' leo's pictured above. Does this represent a reduction in fitness, worthy of purging the system?

Well, let us consider:

- Is the animals movement affected? Likely not (although admittedly, this is speculation).
- Is its feeding affected? Almost certainly not.
- Evacuation? Possible, although in the photo, I would highly doubt it (it could be possible in extreme cases though).

So, to all intents and purposes, this animal could live the solitary life, common to this species in captivity without reduced quality. However, it seems when you consider 'higher' function tasks associated with introducing another animal, negative fitness traits become more apparent:

- Much of the 'communication' used in this species is tail based, this 'could' pose a problem here.

- Depending on the curvature, and direction of the tail, mating could be difficult.

There will likely be others, but you get the point. How do you classify a negative trait? Likely you have to consider various different conditions, but ultimately you will come down to one key point: Is the animal 'fit' for the environment it inhabits? This is *not* the same for every animal, nor is it the same for every keeper. This make things very tricky. One mans miracle, is another mans mutant...

I am not a fan of silkbacks for example, but I consider it a reasonable statement to suggest that: "under specific environmental conditions, their phenotype is not detrimental to their health", conversely of course, change the environment even slightly, and the animal is likely to suffer greatly.

This is, contrary to popular opinion, not a problem that is uniquely restricted to captive breeding however. Perhaps one of the best examples is this: Species within the genus _Phelsuma_ have very delicate skin. In captivity this is a real fitness disadvantage. Confined pairs will inflict serious looking wounds with frequency, increasing the risk of infection related mortality. However, in the 'wild' this is an evolutionary favoured defense strategy, allowing them the ability to avoid predation (although not without its cost). Do we consider this trait to be deleterious? Would it be considered appropriate to select for thicker, less delicate skin? Is an advantage in one environment (or a disadvantage for that matter) always an advantage? Here, the answer is likely not... Something which has taken many thousands (if not millions) of years to evolve, is, in the blink of an eye, a real disadvantage.

Food for though, perhaps...

Andy


----------



## loxocemus (Sep 2, 2006)

the problem i think here is when a mutation is discovered that needs extra support to do as well as their normal counterparts and that mutation becomes common place, how many of the owners will provide these necessary extra steps the mutation needs to thrive, are you creating a line of animals that will suffer more in lesser hands, and does the originator bear some blame for this...

rgds
ed


----------



## rum&coke (Apr 19, 2009)

Ok health problems aside. How about this. How about evolution, now say you have a species of lizard living on one island. some how a group of them get moved to another island and because of different environment the smallest ones do the best on the new island and after years of selective breeding you have a lizard on the second island that looks different and is smaller. Scientists would probably then say that the lizards were related but a sub-species and not the same as the original lizards on the first island. Now with morphs people breed a species of lizard for certain traits for years and the end result is a lizard that looks different and is smaller but they just call it a morph and not a sub-species of the original lizard. My question is how far could you take selectively breeding a trait in a species and change the look and characteristics so much and still consider it the same species as the original wild type.


----------



## paulh (Sep 19, 2007)

loxocemus said:


> the problem i think here is when a mutation is discovered that needs extra support to do as well as their normal counterparts and that mutation becomes common place, how many of the owners will provide these necessary extra steps the mutation needs to thrive, are you creating a line of animals that will suffer more in lesser hands, and does the originator bear some blame for this...
> 
> rgds
> ed


If the mutation is desirable enough to become commonplace, then the extra care becomes commonplace, too.

Such a line is likely to lose lesser deleterious genes. So out bred animals could be genetically healthier than either parent stock.

That's my opinion.


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

rum&coke said:


> My question is how far could you take selectively breeding a trait in a species and change the look and characteristics so much and still consider it the same species as the original wild type.


Well, you've got to ask whether it is willing or able to breed with the original wild species, whether there is input from other nearby related species/subspecies and whether there are any major STRUCTURAL changes to the animal as well as outward colour/pattern changes.

For example, I think there is a VERY good argument for declaring most captive-bred leopard geckos a different subspecies, because most of them are going to be *hybrids* of the wild subspecies - not pure-subspecies or locality groups. There aren't many breeders doing subspecies breeding groups.

If they were declared a separate subspecies - _Eublepharis macularius domesticus_ or some such - at least it would be clear that captive animals are not suitable for, should not be considered for and should not be allowed to be released; they aren't what they were in the wild.


----------

