Update "firebelly" ( pr. patternless)

[Zach]

Sorry if my choice of words is incorrect.

[bruno]

No, they would not be pure intermedia. I can see why you would think that, but PLEASE do not call your babies pure. While IJ is not identified, technically it is Tiliqua gigas evanescens. Irian Jaya is what we call these scincoides looking Merakues. Until further identified to science, they still have a name, and it is T. g. evanescens.

Genetics do not work that simply, and your babies will NOT be pure lol

I dont call them pure ?

they are hybrids.

But the way i describet, they will become as pure as possible, in

time, called selectiv breeding.

Only peoples prejudices, makes people think like that

To state a 99.9 % is not "pure", make me think about Hitler.

WHO sayed pure races.

Is that what we want ?

Human, aren`t we mammals to.

We want animals to be "pure", but what are we doing, mixing all

we can, read, yellow, brown,black, white. All in one bigg bowle.

Talk abouth the master people (mammal).

Sorry, mabye a bit off topic


Im not the only one who think, they can become pure.

digg this out.


[/quote]Siebren-

I also agree that it's too easy to say the cross is the reason for the mutation. My guess is that just one of the animals carries the gene (originally), and passed it on to one of your's. Who knows if the cross-species has anything to do with it. It could be the reason though.

Listen, hang on to your adults. It's possible that either the Northern OR the IJ carry this trait, and it could possibly be passed on to pure babies. Acquire another Northern and IJ of the opposite sex, and breed both. What do you think? You would then have PURE babies with this trait. Now, that's something that would be desired. Including by me!
_________________

+ 1.2 Irian Jaya (Slurpy, Sassy, Cool Moe Dee)
+ 1.1 Eastern (Eugene, Enzo)
+ 1.2 Northern (Niko, Pearl, Peach)
+ 1.0 Tanimbar Island (TQ)
+ 1.0 Merauke (Sunny)

[Zach]

"Acquire another Northern and IJ of the opposite sex, and breed both. What do you think? You would then have PURE babies with this trait. Now, that's something that would be desired. Including by me! "



This is a much better way to go!

[Fatal_S]

I agree too! If you could manage to this patternless trait without hybridizing, it would be great.

Hey Zach, not trying to argue with your logic on this, but say you were to breed Eugene and Enzo and one of the babies comes out pure white (or any other color)! Would you not attempt to maybe breed them again for another chance, breed the baby back to the parents, or somehow bring out this recessive trait?

For me, I would. It's a puzzle, a challenge, and if I could manage it, it would be a huge source of Pride. I still do Punette Squares for fun. Genetics is a huge puzzle full of twists. To me, it would be a very fun thing to do. However, it would be done for fun, not money, I would breed pure, or if already hybridized I would make sure it was known, no trickery.

[KyleWeiss]

There is a difference between an AKC backyard bred golden, and an UKC registered, hip dislpaysia screened, field quality dog.


There are high quality, healthy morphs. You just need to look for them. In many cases, color is the only thing changed. Sure, some morphs are weaker, but they can be weaker, they don't have to deal with predators.

In the wild, Rollie would have been lunch, along with 99% of all our captive bred pets, regardless of how well adapted they are. For every wolf out there, there are the 5 that starved, the 4 that died of mange, the one killed by the grizzly, and the 15 that kicked in the head by a moose.

You seem to miss the point. If Rollie was put out in the wild, not only would he be fine, but in the argument he wouldn't due to domestic conditioning, he'd STILL have a genetic advantage, hidden or not, because he resembles a wild blue tongue (genetically) than a Super Fire and Ice Satan Red Longtail Johnny Rocket Radness Eastern BTS, which could have hidden susceptibilities to anything from parasites, to temperatures, to missing environmental or mating cues.

Like you said, they are weaker. If you admit we're breeding weaker animals, where does it stop? It doesn't. The more and more we breed in the pretty and out the original design eventually will lead to a compromise. Generally, that might not be a big deal, but suffering animals aren't my favorite thing in the world.

So the difference between a backyard dog and AKC breed quality dog and one that has genetic mutations differ, how? There's STILL an animal that's being paraded around and bred for something, passing something down to it's offspring. I fail to see how that covers anything up in a good way. I hate to tell you, the ones that end up with REALLY bad genetic hip problems (for dogs) usually end up backyard dogs WITH PAPERS, stating they're something special, so people buy broken, expensive AKC dogs and keep breeding them. Brilliant.

KW

[Zbiz]

This is my take on it... If people are willing to spend money on any morph, id say let them. Is it wrong to sell a ball python morph for 100,000. No. This world is about money! If slapping a name makes them more valuable in peoples eye's and they act upon that who can we blame. If i can sell you a piece of string for $10 because I called it a fire inferno string i would do it... who wouldnt? Rather than accusing the breeder we should be accusing the buyer. Should we look at our collections and see dollar signs? I don't but I really wouldnt mind making some money off of it, no matter if its an extremely small amount.

We all want the popularity of BTS to grow. I want to attend a reptile show and actually see one! BTS are often times over looked by breeders for the simple fact that theres a lack of "morphs" to find. Creating morphs through line breeding is going to happen with BTS... it already has. We can fight it sure. Yes it is unfortunate that the patternless gene was found in a hybrid. But should we let that patternless gene go? Should we ignor it and hope that it'll pop up in the future in a pure breed? We may never see it again... Who knows?

[NomadOfTheHills]

There is a difference between an AKC backyard bred golden, and an UKC registered, hip dislpaysia screened, field quality dog.


There are high quality, healthy morphs. You just need to look for them. In many cases, color is the only thing changed. Sure, some morphs are weaker, but they can be weaker, they don't have to deal with predators.

In the wild, Rollie would have been lunch, along with 99% of all our captive bred pets, regardless of how well adapted they are. For every wolf out there, there are the 5 that starved, the 4 that died of mange, the one killed by the grizzly, and the 15 that kicked in the head by a moose.

You seem to miss the point. If Rollie was put out in the wild, not only would he be fine, but in the argument he wouldn't due to domestic conditioning, he'd STILL have a genetic advantage, hidden or not, because he resembles a wild blue tongue (genetically) than a Super Fire and Ice Satan Red Longtail Johnny Rocket Radness Eastern BTS, which could have hidden susceptibilities to anything from parasites, to temperatures, to missing environmental or mating cues.

The thing is, just because he looks like a wild BTS, does not make him any more healthy than a "morph," aside from less predation. Sure, the morph might carry a linked genetic trait for less fitness in the wild, but more than likely, the reason those morphs don't exist in the wild is because it disrupts their natural crypsis.

Like you said, they are weaker. If you admit we're breeding weaker animals, where does it stop? It doesn't. The more and more we breed in the pretty and out the original design eventually will lead to a compromise. Generally, that might not be a big deal, but suffering animals aren't my favorite thing in the world.

We do not cull our BTS when they breed. Chances are, almost all of the BTS born would not make it in the wild. The ones that do were lucky, and most likely have superior genetics. By JUST breeding any BTS, we ARE weakening them, whether they look like a wild type or not.

So the difference between a backyard dog and AKC breed quality dog and one that has genetic mutations differ, how? There's STILL an animal that's being paraded around and bred for something, passing something down to it's offspring. I fail to see how that covers anything up in a good way. I hate to tell you, the ones that end up with REALLY bad genetic hip problems (for dogs) usually end up backyard dogs WITH PAPERS, stating they're something special, so people buy broken, expensive AKC dogs and keep breeding them. Brilliant.

My point was the difference between AKC and UKC dogs. The AKC is a conformation (showing) club, where the UKC is a working club. Dogs registered in the AKC often wind up as backyard breeders, just so the pups can be sold as AKC. The UKC however, while not against conformation, focuses on the working dog, making sure it is physically sound, and able to do the job it was bred for, be it tracking, retrieving, pointing, herding, pulling, etc.

KW

[/b]

[NomadOfTheHills]

Also, Zach, I highly doubt that those sunset northerns would have survived if born in the wild. Caramel, possibly, but also not likely.


P.S. This is a great conversation everyone!

[Lisa]

I think anyone selling a species should sell it simply as it's recognised name ie Eastern Blue Tongue/Tiliqua Scincoides, Blotched Blue Tongue/Tiliqua Nigrolutea etc.

By all means go wild in the description about how orange, purple, flourescent or how it glows in the dark, but the species type should be all that is written in the title with perhaps a hint that it's a good looker or stunner or different.

Until new names or titles are recognised by a registered body (like with dogs or cats or farm animals) I don't think they should be sold as anything other than what their species is. Maybe there is a registered reptile body over there that people who are into new variations can register with I don't know. There's not one here.

However I don't think it's necessarily misleading for breeders to sell animals as tangerine or caramel or whatever because it's up to the purchaser to do his homework in regards to the species being purchased, but I worry at the effects that certain colour variations may have on the individual animal. For example albinos or melanistic may need specialist husbandry in regards to the amount of heat and light they can tolerate.

So too may other animals bred for a colour that they were not genetically meant to have. Animals have evolved their physical attributes to suit their environment, and while we can create an artificial environment to meet their needs, we don't really know yet what those needs may be since their attributes have been tinkered with.

So I guess the only thing I have a problem with in regards to fancy coloured animals, is that they tend to appeal to the buyer who is purchasing an animal simply based on looks, as catchy ad titles promote this. Why else would you sell them as anything other than the species they are if not to attract a buyer who is after something 'different'? I just worry for the animals out there that may have been bought by someone just because they want to show off or have something different to everyone else. Not a good reason to purchase any animal.

[Tattoo]

All this talk of breeding for fantastic colors is interesting. I am always amazed at the human ego. We attempt to improve everything. I love the blueys just the way nature made them. It's enough of a stretch that we take them out of the wild to keep as pets (and believe me I have questioned myself more than once for that). I like the plain old garden variety find em in your back yard colors. Just my two cents. In advance ... no offense intended to anyone breeding for fantastic colors.

[NomadOfTheHills]

[Fatal_S]

Nomad what is that and who poured white out on it? Personally, that kind of morph is no interest to me. I like the pattern on the back, but the white parts are just to odd. I prefer animals where the colors or patterns cover the whole animal, not like a quilt. But that's me. I also think albino geckos are disgusting. Eww.

[NomadOfTheHills]

That is a piebald ball python.

[Bird_Brain]

Man is that beautiful! I will someday own atleast one Pied Ball, probably a breeding pair/trio. They are one of my favorite snakes.

[Fatal_S]

If the white spots were over the whole body, maybe I could understand it. I's a bit Obsessive Compulsive, I like it to be the same throughout. Only the neck and tail being white just looks unbalanced and wrong to me.

[NomadOfTheHills]

Me too, their price keeps dropping, once I get out of school and have a decent job, I plan on getting one. To be honest, I am not a big ball python fan. They are reclusive, and very common. But how could anyone say no to a piebald? It is an incredible WILD morph hahaha.

[Fatal_S]

The curled up one is pretty neat.

[Bird_Brain]

Me too, their price keeps dropping, once I get out of school and have a decent job, I plan on getting one. To be honest, I am not a big ball python fan. They are reclusive, and very common. But how could anyone say no to a piebald? It is an incredible WILD morph hahaha.

I know! I was originally planning on getting a pair of het. and hoping to produce some pied for me because of their price, but heck with in a year or two, I will be able to afford one. I am sure they will still be expensive, but nothing like they used to be.

I am also not a Ball python fan. If it wasnt for the Pied then I would have ZERO interest in them.

[NomadOfTheHills]

Same here. I'm almost positive the pied gene is a simple ressesive, which is why the price is dropping. It only takes a year to make the morph, as opposed to the other insane multigeneration morphs.

Zach's Nightmare:

[Scotts1au]

I come from a family that used to breed Poodles, the aim wasn't to develop a line of Poodles that could restore wild marauding Poodle populations to the windswept peaks of Europe , but to produce pets that met the expectations of buyers, which included being genetically sound. They were adequately distinguished from purebred dingoes for example so that if someone wanted to repopulate the world with dingoes they knew not to come to us .

I would argue that the mere act of breeding bluey's in captivity will eventually lead to genetic selection of animals unlikely to survive in the wild. The mere act of breeding blueys in fish tanks genetically selects for animals with a propensity to breed in fish tanks. This act probably actively discriminates against animals who are stressed out by this environment which in some cases are those that would probably do better in the wild ie. more nervous, conscious of predators etc.

As long as the mungs are adequately delineated as such there is probably not much of an issue and may (as long as the animals are not inbred to the hilt) promote a market for bred animals over those stolen from the wild.

my two cents worth

Scott