CornSnakes.com Forums  
  Tired of those Google and InfoLinks ads? Register and log in!

Go Back   CornSnakes.com Forums > The CornSnake Forums > Natural History/Field Observation
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Notices

Natural History/Field Observation Field observations of corn snakes, field collecting, or just general topics about the natural environment they are found in.

Captivity?
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-24-2005, 08:30 PM   #1
Charlie
Captivity?

Okay, I wasn't sure if this is where I should post this but someone will let me know otherwise.

Do you think that captivity has had an effect on cornsnake? What are anyones thoughts on evolution and how it is effected by captivity? Will corns in captivity evolve or does the captivity inhibit it?

Thanks
 
Old 01-24-2005, 08:47 PM   #2
kyocera
I think that we can attribute all of the wonderful color morphs we have today to captivity. What kind of evolution are you speaking of? I think that corns in the wild have evolved to perfection for the areas they live in already. Not much evolution left. I think that we could probably create smaller or larger corns through selective breeding in captivity though.

Kyo
 
Old 01-24-2005, 08:59 PM   #3
TrpnBils
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie
Okay, I wasn't sure if this is where I should post this but someone will let me know otherwise.

Do you think that captivity has had an effect on cornsnake? What are anyones thoughts on evolution and how it is effected by captivity? Will corns in captivity evolve or does the captivity inhibit it?

Thanks

Well, I can't tell you about corns in captivity exactly since I don't have mine yet, but I can tell you about evolution. Corns in captivity MAY evolve to be more domesticated (kinda like dogs did) but it would literally take thousands, if not millions, of years. The dogs we have in our homes now are bred so far out of the wild (and most breeds have been bred for a specific trait or two) that, although they still have wild instincts, they're extremely different from their wild relatives. Put the Taco Bell dog up against a pack of grey wolves and see who survives the longest.

But anyway...

As an individual snake is concerned, I'm sure that captivity does have some effect on them, especially if they were wild-caught originally. As far as the species itself is concerned, I'm not really sure how long they've been bred in captivity, but I can just about guarantee that they haven't evolved because of it. Sure, a lot of people will tell you that captive-bred snakes may be calmer, have more diverse genetics, and adjust to F/T mice better than their wild counterparts...and I would agree with that completely. But the thing to remember is that it's not because of evolution. The breeders breed for these traits, and after so long of doing that, most of the CB snakes show similarities. I'm not saying that a WC corn wouldn't calm down or do any of those other things, I'm just saying that if you have a snake that has been out of the wild for several generations, it'll probably happen easier.

I don't know if that helped or just made things more confusing, but I hope somebody gets something out of it.
 
Old 01-24-2005, 09:18 PM   #4
TrpnBils
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyocera
I think that we can attribute all of the wonderful color morphs we have today to captivity. What kind of evolution are you speaking of? I think that corns in the wild have evolved to perfection for the areas they live in already. Not much evolution left. I think that we could probably create smaller or larger corns through selective breeding in captivity though.

Kyo
Ok, I have to say something else...lol. Evolution is something that has always interested me, and I've taken classes in Evolutionary Analysis and Evolutionary Genetics among other things, and my professors have all been VERY uptight about how people use the term "evolution", and for good reason, so it's kinda been pushed off on me I guess. So what I'm trying to say is that I hope I don't offend anybody with this comment, but this is what I've gotten out of three months shy of a bachelor's degree in biology.

I agree with the statement about how we could probably get smaller or larger corns through selective breeding and that they have evolved in the wild to be pretty well suited to their habitats. 100% agree there. They may be suited to their habitats NOW, but not the habitats of 1000 years from now, or maybe even tomorrow for that matter. The one thing I remember more than anything else from my professors is their constant "Evolution doesn't have an end"....meaning that evolution isn't striving towards any kind of a final product. Same with people....we all (myself included) think that we're the top life form on the planet. But put us in a methane and sulfur-rich environment and we'd die. So from an archaebacterium's perspective, we're inferior.

What I'm getting at is that I don't think that there's "not much evolution left". Quite the opposite, actually, because as the climate changes and their environment changes, corn snakes (along with us and everything else) will have the choice to either evolve to meet their new needs, or go extinct. Evolution doesn't take place within a lifetime, just across generations (that's adaptation)....and it takes an insane amount of generations to even show the slightest evolutionary change. So I don't think evolution in corn snakes has stopped, but I also know that we won't be around to see any evolutionary change. The traits you that breeders select for (color, size, temperament, etc) are just simple genetics. It's no different than you or I having a different hair or eye color than one of our parents.

So I really hope that didn't come across as arrogant or rude, but I just wanted you to see what this generation of biologists is being taught. Now maybe I should run away before I get hit...lol.
 
Old 01-24-2005, 11:46 PM   #5
kyocera
I agree completely that everything must adapt to new situation, environment, etc. But are we really evolving. You can name any given scenario, and I would call it adaptation, while someone else would call it evolution. Evolution in my mind would entail becoming something else entirely. A corn snake will always be a corn snake. Now or in a thousand years, it will just adapt to whatever nature throws at it, or become extinct as you stated. Darwinians would probably disagree with me though.

Kyo
 
Old 01-25-2005, 12:18 AM   #6
TrpnBils
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by kyocera
I agree completely that everything must adapt to new situation, environment, etc. But are we really evolving. You can name any given scenario, and I would call it adaptation, while someone else would call it evolution. Evolution in my mind would entail becoming something else entirely. A corn snake will always be a corn snake. Now or in a thousand years, it will just adapt to whatever nature throws at it, or become extinct as you stated. Darwinians would probably disagree with me though.

Kyo
Right, but adaptation and evolution are two entirely different things. Adaptation can happen over one lifetime and to one individual, but evolution happens over generations and happens to entire populations as a whole (because they share the same gene pool, which is why it doesn't necessarily have to happen to the entire species). That's why evolution is never caught up with time. The population is always one step behind, matched to the last kind of environment.

As for thinking that evolution means becoming an entirely different species, a lot of people think that. But if you actually study evolution, you'll see that's not what it means at all. The example I always hear is "if evolution exists, and we evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?" The reason for that is because evolution isn't changing from one species to another in a linear fashion. Humans and monkeys came from a common ancestor, yes, but we did not evolve from monkeys as many people imply. That's why evolution is seen as a tree instead of a straight line.

I agree with what you said above here - "A corn snake will always be a corn snake. Now or in a thousand years, it will just adapt to whatever nature throws at it, or become extinct as you stated" - except for one point. And that point is just a matter of semantics I think, so you and I may be agreeing on more than we realize. Like I said before, adaptation takes place over a single individual's lifetime, but evolution occurs over thousands or millions of years.

And that's interesting that you brought up Darwinians...am I correct in assuming you consider yourself a Creationist then? It doesn't really matter to me, I'm just curious really because I don't even know what I consider myself. I believe in evolution because it can be seen as hard evidence in the fossil record, but I also go to church weekly and I have been a Christian far longer than I have been a student of biology. So where does that put me? I don't know, and I don't really lose sleep over it because I think the labels of Creationist and Darwinian are really unnecessary because it lumps people into two groups with seemingly set limits when there can actually be a whole lot of overlap in beliefs.

So, I think we're actually agreeing on a lot here, but it may just come down to word choice on your/my part. This has been an interesting discussion for me at least!
 
Old 01-25-2005, 08:24 AM   #7
kyocera
I am a Christian, but have a hard time wrapping my head around a seven day "Creation". I am more of a believer in "Intelligent Design" that has happened over more years than I care to guess.

I think you are right that we agree more than we disagree. I have never had someone explain evolution vs adaptation the way you have, and it makes sense to me.

I have also enjoyed this discussion. Thanks.

Kyo
 
Old 01-25-2005, 12:14 PM   #8
Charlie
I started this conversation with a friend of mine. We really got into the legistics and stuff with each other. I don't know if I really mean evolution....

This is what gets me...you know how there are several different wild populations of corn in the wild....like the charcoals (A.K.A Pine Island Anerys), and then there are the bloodreds, and the okettee, and the caramels. Didn't all these different populations adapt/evovle to fit their environments? Isn't cpativity a different environment? I guess you could say that they have adapted to captivity through....eating of f/t, less aggressive (though some corns make me wonder if they came from the wild), color,...etc.

All these all adaptions to captivity or are the man made?

just my thoughts....
 
Old 01-25-2005, 02:46 PM   #9
TrpnBils
I see what you're saying here...I thought that might have been the angle you were coming from originally. I may have oversimplified some stuff in my last couple of posts, so let me clarify. Adaptation can happen over one lifetime to one individual, but it can ALSO happen over generations. The difference is that evolution NEVER takes place over one lifetime and doesn't happen to just one individual. I also mentioned about how evolution doesn't necessarily mean one species turning into a new species. To me, that view of evolution entails something like Species A evolves into Species B and *Poof* there's no more Species A. That's how a lot of people see it, but that's a linear approach, which is why that doesn't happen that way.

A good way to look at it is like a tree. You've heard of Charles Darwin I'm assuming? His observations of the Galapagos Finches are a good example. Some small part of the South American Finch population migrated off of the mainland to the islands. Let's assume that they bred and, over the years, amassed a huge population on the islands. They're still basically the same kind of bird that came from the mainland at this point. Let's also assume that they all ate one specific kind of seed. As the population grew, that seed began to be scarce. Some of the birds may have longer beaks than others (just like I may have longer arms than you right now - remember they're not all 100% identical) and these birds learn that they can use their longer beaks to reach into cacti and get insects. Birds with thicker beaks also start to eat larger seeds. Over time, those two populations diverge even further (because they breed with each other; i.e. Long to long, thick to thick beaked) and each becomes less like the original population. This is the branching of the evolutionary tree. The original species still exists, but two "specialized" populations are now different enough from the original one that they can no longer breed with it. Interbreeding is one parameter of defining a species. If two populations can't breed with each other then they're not the same species.

So take a look at snakes. Corn snakes are close relatives of rat snakes (a lot of people consider them rat snakes, but again, that's more of an argument of word choice). So if you're one of those people, just put that aside for a second and look at it from this perspective because it's easier to explain it this way.

Assuming that corn snakes are a seperate species from rat snakes (yes, they can interbreed in some cases, but look where I'm going with this), you can see that they had a common ancestor in the recent past (by which I mean probably thousands or millions of years ago). Take a look at two corn snakes now: a bloodred and a caramel. They look different, may not exist in the same geographical area, and have different genetics when it comes to color. But can they still interbreed easily? Of course they can, that's how we get new color morphs. Because they live in different geographical areas and are suited to them doesn't mean they're a different species or that evolution has occured, it's just an example of multi-generational adaptation. If you took a corn snake that's native to the southernmost part of the corn snake range and put it in the wild at the northernmost part of the corn snake range, it probably wouldn't fare as well as the snakes that are native to the northern part of the range.

And I think you're right, corns that have been bred in captivity for many generations have adapted to it (like the examples you gave). Adapted, but not evolved. You can still take a captive-bred corn and breed it with a wild one with no problem.

Does that make sense? I hope so... when i reply here, I don't intend on writing a book every time, it just ends up that way...lol. So I'm sorry if anyone's sick of hearing from me.
 
Old 01-25-2005, 11:54 PM   #10
hediki
my opinion is that it does effect them, because of all the morphs that we have now and i think that them being captive doesnt alow them to evolve as the should if they were in the wild. since there captive they have no threats almost a constant climate, almost a constant food supply, so they have no need to evolve ther "perfect" as they are.
 

Join now to reply to this thread or open new ones for your questions & comments! Cornsnakes.com is the largest online community dedicated to cornsnakes . Registration is open to everyone and FREE. Click Here to Register!

Google
 
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:04 AM.





Fauna Top Sites
 

Powered by vBulletin® Version
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.06490588 seconds with 10 queries
Copyright Rich Zuchowski/SerpenCo