Update "firebelly" ( pr. patternless)

[bruno]

I contacted the original breeder myself last year to aquire more information about her founder animals. Unforntunately she is convinced the animals are 100% pure bred and will not hear of anything else. In fact I'm no longer on speaking terms with her as she was really agrivated by my suggestion.

.

I know you did that Siebren. It`s okay. I did bye them as hybrids, from

you, no worryes.

Don`t worry, bee happy. .

I still, think people who know more abouth that male skink.(Not you

Siebren ).

Ought to, step forward. And if possible, give us all proofe, that

the skink is a ??

Just to say, I did see a picture, i did see the animal. I have seen

many bts, but that`s not the same as, I identify the skink . But I know it

looked like a bla bla.

do anyone follow me here ?

Thank´s to all who, told they like the bts. I will bee updating you

if and when, something new happens.

[Siebren]

Haha, never any offence taken Bruno, no worries!

I just wanted to clearify some things for everybody, that's why I repeated some things we already discussed. It would be cool if we can track their bloodlines, but I'm afraid we will have to keep guessing for it..

Cheers,
Siebren

[Zach]

Only because I do not agree with you

Popeye is a rare trait, most reptiles breed today readily in captivity. To me, this means they are healthy enough to pass on their genes. While it sounds cruel, I am a fan of culling. Responsible dog breeders do this by neutering, fish keepers do it by feeding weak fry to other fish.

Few in the reptile community cull their neonates, so even while maintaining the wild type, there is no natural selection for fitness. Every captive bred generation makes weaker animals, morph or not. Adding new bloodlines occasionally helps, however, this means more animals taken from the wild.

Ahh, so while inventing the picture perfect nutty-named creation, the "problem" baby skinks which inevitably arise should be killed off so they don't pass on that bad gene. Hmm. Can someone who is in love with BTS do that? Ahhh, we got 15 babies!!! This is the 4th generation of this certain trait we're trying to get, and it looks like 5 of these babies have one huge eye ball. These one's need to go. Sooo...we have two choices. Cull them...ok kill them because we can't have their man-made messed up genetics in our future babies and breeders, or....sell them as pets even though the genetic mutation might cause the baby a life of pain....but....you can't sell them as pets (if you're responsible) because if it were ever bred, its babies may share the same problems creating a chain reaction of skink generations with a terrible trait all the while the breeders don't even know it because they aren't aware it's a real problem; unless it's something really, really obvious in which case they would likely have to be put down. Sounds like a lot of crap.

I can breed 15 perfect babies that look just how they do in the wild and have them be appreciated by anybody and 100% healthy.

[Zach]

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!

Ahh, but there are portions in the tanami desert (so I'm told) where Northerns and yes, the bright orange Centralians of the red sands are found in very close range. Perhaps there are Northerns from around these areas who have adapted to the red/clay colored grounds. And remember the "carmels" often end up having black on them at some point in their lives (James Wilson's original line) and that there's hardly any difference (I don't think) between them and regulars. Just lacking a little black but still perfectly capable of camouflage.

Thats a stretch

Why do you say it's a stretch? Here are their range maps based on my conversations with many people (inlcuding two bt bible authors). It is strikingly similar to the bluey bible.



" 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. "


All the more reason to stick to au natural as much as possible! Heh, I'm almost waiting for the day when all leo geckos just drop dead -- as you said, when's the last time we've seen an import....scary

What you see as scary, I see as a success for both the bed trade and for wildlife conservation

What I'm saying is scary is the distant possibility of losing some of our BTS which right now, only the northern is left when talking about which animals we have that are similar to their natural fauna. We already lost the majority of our Easterns (if it weren't for Ray, I don't think we'd have any readily available at all). Easterns were available (like Northerns are today) in the 80's and they have all but disappeared. James can tell you quite the story about how they used to be the norm in the states. It just goes to show how quickly we can lose a species that isn't popular....sad to say, but BTS ARE NOT POPULAR; thusly, they are not high in numbers, thusly, creating morphs can also be considered dangerous aside from reasons of creating genetic problems because there is actually that potential of losing a species. At least a species that could be readily purchased; there will always be wild one's smuggled in in small numbers. But that's an entirely other subject which I could go off on a tangent about....

Luckily, what few Northerns we have in the states are still regular northerns as far as we can tell....keep it that way! Keep it that way! Cue Renee's angry mob smiley.

I really do not understand you fear of morphs, as there is not one species that I can think of where the wild type has disappeared. In most species, the wildtype is still the most common, and what most people start the hobby with. Unless you go to a herp show, you are unlikely to buy a morph. Morphs in pet stores are extremely overpriced compared to normals, even more so than at herp shows.

See my previous post....and my previous text on this post.

[Chase]

Wait, so Zach, you're trying to say that Andrew's sunset and caramel northerns are NOT morphs? That doesn't make sense at all to me. His skinks obviously have something in their genetics that cause them to appear differently than a normal skink.....so the term morph seems to fit quite nicely.

[Zach]

Chase, maybe you should read this thread...that's been explained in detail in my posts.

[NomadOfTheHills]

I'm just going to agree to disagree lol

[Chase]

Chase, maybe you should read this thread...that's been explained in detail in my posts.

Frankly my dear, I did read the thread, very quickly. Not all of us have the time to read 6 pages of humongous posts.

[Zach]

Frankly my dear, I did read the thread, very quickly. Not all of us have the time to read 6 pages of humongous posts.

I don't know what to tell you then....

[Chase]

I'm just going to agree to disagree lol

Don't admit defeat! Keep arguing until someone passes out. Then get back up and keep arguing more.

[Chase]

Frankly my dear, I did read the thread, very quickly. Not all of us have the time to read 6 pages of humongous posts.

I don't know what to tell you then....

Kindly reiterate yourself madame by giving me an abridged version. Well, basically what I got from reading all 6 pages in about 3 minutes was that you think if it's found in the wild (natural) it isn't a morph apparently?

[Zach]

I suppose the real question is whether the average enthusiast considers a wild morph and a "manmade" morph the same thing. I don't think the word should encompass both...but again, that's the ambiguous part of this topic...

[Chase]

I suppose the real question is whether the average enthusiast considers a wild morph and a "manmade" morph the same thing. I don't think the word should encompass both...but again, that's the ambiguous part of this topic...

Well, when problems like this arise I like to refer to the simplest definition of a morph. The simplest definition would be any genetic mutation that makes a species distinct from another member of that species. Hence, Andrew's skinks would be morphs.

[Shadowfax]

I would consider them so as well. There's no difference between them and an orange leo. Wild survivability is not really an issue -- captive breeding, even for wild types, already selects for animals who do best in captivity, so it's not as if you could turn even "normal" looking animals loose and expect them to repopulate. I'm not arguing for proliferation of all kinds of morphs -- I do think the names are silly. Just that there is no difference between creating a "sunset northern" and a "tangerine leopard gecko."

[Leigh]

I think, in the wild they(any animal) choose who they sleep with,its natural,unforced and not at all stage set,making it evolution. HUMANS mess with this million+ year old practice,so that makes it an un-natural selection, making it a morph, its not like you fill a pit with 100's of each sex and wait for nature to take its course,also if you breed them back to the parents(inbreeding)that doesnt sound natural to me,so I'd call that morphing as well,look what it does to humans,are other animals exempt of these side affects? Has anyone done studies to see if inbreeding occurs naturally?
There will be debates about this for yonks,with no one being right or wrong,just different sides of the fence,with some sat on it!!!!!!

[Shadowfax]

Yes, there are studies on whether inbreeding occurs naturally -- and in some species it does. These species actually suffer from outbreeding depression, because they have evolved as closely related individuals. I don't have the references on me, but I did find quite a few on this when in grad school. It was very interesting to me to learn that it was actually beneficial (in limited cases, with species that had developed this naturally) for inbreeding to occur.

Another interesting point -- when captive breeding was occuring, it took very little wild input (less than we would anticipate) to maintain healthy gene diversity and flow in a captive population. Again, don't have the number on me, but it was far less than I would have imagined.

However, it was also fairly easy to create a population that was selected for living in captivity. Required a relatively low number of generations to see a change in genetic makeup and behaviour, even though animals looked identical to their wild cousins.

Food for thought....

[Chase]

If I recall correctly reptiles tend to be able to be inbred more tightly than say, birds or mammals, without any ill effects.

[KyleWeiss]

What I think is potentially bad is not something like, say "Sunset Skinks," where animals not necessarily related but look similarly are given a "morph" designation, it prompts people that don't have the resources to breed as Andrew breeds, for example, by buying a special animal and breeding it back to it's offspring over and over, the offspring to offspring, then isolating the trait and getting a "morph."

My problem is the rabid impatience and dollar signs that appear in may people's eyes regarding "morphs," that pull out all the stops to "design," something pretty, simply for the sake of being pretty.

John never mentioned it in our argument directly in this context, but on his side, at least some dogs being bred out are for a PURPOSE (at least intended that way, not just a lazy trophy who gets the paper for you), whereas skinks are NOT.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that "morphs," and "breeds," make money, and to be on the forefront of this could be a gold mine. Even the casual "hobbyist breeder," would certainly smile knowing that the hobby could be a potentially profitable Plan B, and if that isn't the case, you at least get your name mentioned among the who's-who of the breeding world if it gets to that point, so effort paid in ego.

All of that is fine if we were talking about a designer handbag or a line of vases, that feel nothing and have nothing to lose.

KW

[Hijinks]

Noob perspective: I think the "morph" phenomenon touches a nerve when applied to BTS because it would cheapen these great animals, reducing them to a pretty token and status symbol. I know a lot of us dote on our lizard pets. We recognize their unique personalities, are touched by their tameness, and marvel at their curiosity. To have them reduced to a show piece -- some pretty thing you can pull out of the heated tupperware container in the corner when your frat buddies come over -- is a devastating thought.

[Shadowfax]

If I recall correctly reptiles tend to be able to be inbred more tightly than say, birds or mammals, without any ill effects.

Certain fish species can suffer outbreeding depression (was seen in American shad populations in VA). Also, inbreeding was not found to be deleterious in either Mexican or red wolf breeding programs.

This is not necessarily related to the morph debate, but may be of interest in reference to captive breeding.

Another very interesting study showed that if a captive population was maintained for the purposes of supporting a wild population and then individuals from that population were released back into the wild, even low levels of gene flow back into that wild population caused significant declines in fitness due to subtle phenotype changes in captivity. Very interesting stuff, just added it here as a tangent to the captive breeding discussion in general.