Update "firebelly" ( pr. patternless)

[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...

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.

Andrew's aren't mutations though. They're regular Northerns that are more colorful because he was lucky enough to find TWO adults with high orange coloration. Just like Sunny....it isn't a mutation, it's just an animal that is on the far end of the color spectrum. If I were able to find a mate for Sunny that was high yellow, it'd be the same thing.

Would you call Slurpy a morph? Do you only consider a morph an animal with extreme or lack of coloration? So we have a high yellow Indo like Sunny....morph? Then a typical orange-ish brown Indo...morph? Then at the opposite end we have Cole being gray or silver. Morph? Every BT species color differentiation is a morph? Or do you only consider genetic mutations to be a morph -- that's what you wrote....in which case, that 100% excludes andrew's northerns.

[Zach]

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.

That is really interesting....

[NomadOfTheHills]

Normally before something is called a morph, the individual is considered abberant. After, this, the trait has to be proven to be genetic, and then you can "create" a morph. Also, while it is nice to think if anything ever happened, your BTS could be used for reintroduction, that will never happen, even if BTS become extinct in the wild.

Shadowfax, do you have the name of that paper about reintroduction and reduced fitness? SUNY ESF allows me access to most journals online, I would love to read that.

[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.

Andrew's aren't mutations though. They're regular Northerns that are more colorful because he was lucky enough to find TWO adults with high orange coloration. Just like Sunny....it isn't a mutation, it's just an animal that is on the far end of the color spectrum. If I were able to find a mate for Sunny that was high yellow, it'd be the same thing.

Would you call Slurpy a morph? Do you only consider a morph an animal with extreme or lack of coloration? So we have a high yellow Indo like Sunny....morph? Then a typical orange-ish brown Indo...morph? Then at the opposite end we have Cole being gray or silver. Morph? Every BT species color differentiation is a morph? Or do you only consider genetic mutations to be a morph -- that's what you wrote....in which case, that 100% excludes andrew's northerns.

It's not like they're sun ripened....they're brighter because of their genes.......

[NomadOfTheHills]

I think Zach is in denial haha.

Not promoting morphs is one thing, but not recognizing they exist, haha... oh well.

[KyleWeiss]

Well, that's Zooch for ya, fingers in the ears, "...lalalalalah Morph WHAT? HUH? la la la laaaaaaaaaaa."



KW

[Zach]

I think Zach is in denial haha.

Not promoting morphs is one thing, but not recognizing they exist, haha... oh well.

What? My last post asked whether natural morphs in the wild should be considered the same thing as morphs carefully created in captivity....

I'm saying I think there are TWO separate types!

[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...

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.

Andrew's aren't mutations though. They're regular Northerns that are more colorful because he was lucky enough to find TWO adults with high orange coloration. Just like Sunny....it isn't a mutation, it's just an animal that is on the far end of the color spectrum. If I were able to find a mate for Sunny that was high yellow, it'd be the same thing.

Would you call Slurpy a morph? Do you only consider a morph an animal with extreme or lack of coloration? So we have a high yellow Indo like Sunny....morph? Then a typical orange-ish brown Indo...morph? Then at the opposite end we have Cole being gray or silver. Morph? Every BT species color differentiation is a morph? Or do you only consider genetic mutations to be a morph -- that's what you wrote....in which case, that 100% excludes andrew's northerns.

It's not like they're sun ripened....they're brighter because of their genes.......

I wish you would answer my post better than that....

And no kidding -- they're also dark because of their genes, or blue, green, purple, brown, gray......that's your response?

[Chase]

Sorry, I didn't read the whole post. Anyway, I'd consider it a morph the moment you start marketing it as different.

[Zach]

Why are you even responding to this whole thread if you're not reading any of it.....

Ohhh, Chase.

Ahh, so you only consider morphs something that is marketed as different or special?

[Chase]

:rofl: Why are you even responding to this whole thread if you're not reading any of it.....

Ohhh, Chase.

Ahh, so you only consider morphs something that is marketed as different or special?

Along with my aforementioned points, yes. If you're breeding out a specific trait it's a morph.

[Shadowfax]

Shadowfax, do you have the name of that paper about reintroduction and reduced fitness? SUNY ESF allows me access to most journals online, I would love to read that.

Nomad, I do, it's at home though (yes, I'm a bad person and I check the forum at work). I'll rifle through my old ConBio binder and find that one; I did the lecture on captive breeding for that course so I have a bunch of papers on the topic.

[NomadOfTheHills]

Awesome, thanks!

[Shadowfax]

Ford, M.J. 2002. Selection in captivity during supportive breeding may reduce fitness in the wild. Conservation Biology 16: 815-825.

[NomadOfTheHills]

Sweet!

[bruno]

A morf is a morf, even if its natural or captive breed.

What breeder af Pure bts, have to consider is.

If the goal is, only to breed Pure pure pure, animals, then he/she have

a great responsibility, of find new ways to get some new blod, in the

animal. I see the same trend, as morf breeding. By me bts, they are

100% pure, mabye heavley, inbreeded. ??? don`t mind, as long they

are pure.

Take the more rare bts, how inbreeded are thoose ? Something to think

Big time abouth.

[NomadOfTheHills]

Good example of natural variations, AKA morphs. These were originally considered separate subspecies, but are now known to be simple resessive variants.

These are all Rana pipiens from different areas in their range:

Typical North Dakoda variant, while NY Rana pipiens look different, they share the same general patterns and colors.



Kandiyohi morph


Burnsi morph

[Leigh]

Surely that is local evolution
1=green tinges to match the grassy surroundings
2=dark brown to match mulchy,wooded surroundings
3=light brown to match leaf litter

[KyleWeiss]

"Natural variations," and "morphs," are a real stretch in comparison. Any weakness that would naturally be bred into even the most isolated of populations breeding would die off due to inadequacy. We don't do that with morphs, and if we do, we somehow determine what is good and what isn't.

KW

[NomadOfTheHills]

We also don't do that with regular breeding. While they all look the same, the phenotypes of their internal structure and organ systems are not being pressured for survival. So while "wild type" morphs look the same, we have no clue as to how their internal structures are changing with each captive bred generation.

Color is normally only one or two simple genetic changes, and really is not that big of a deal. While there are some linked disorders to traits, that is really not very common. I can think of two off the top of my head, bugeyed rat snakes and leucisism, and neurologic problems with spider ball pythons.


I think we are really just having a semantic problem. How do you guys define "morph?" I would define it loosely as an inheritable genetic characteristic that makes the animal look different than the most common wild type.


Here is an example in mammals, the "king" cheetah. This ressesive characteristic occurs in wild cheetahs, but is rare and appears to offer no real fitness boost.



Normal cheetah: