• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Scale less Corns anyone?

(trys to blink moisture back into the eyes after reading 19 pages)

I must say there were some mighty strong opinions getting thrown around. I just hope for the sake of these new breeds that they're life is comfortable, their owners are compasionate, and their breeder is knowledgeable and concerned for the well-being of the animals he/she produces.

A wonderful (if at times heated) discussion. Cheers to the OP!
 
"First off, this mutations was not PLANNED nor engineered, it just HAPPENED. So obviously we are looking at yet another experiment that Mother Nature is trying out to see how well it works. Nothing is inherently WRONG about such an animal coming into being, at all. It just IS."

I have to reply to this and I am sorry but that's just wrong. Mutations is 100% random, the thing that insures that defects which harm the snakes will not be passed on is natural selection. A barrier which you remove completely in captivity. The snake does not have to seek out water nor food, is under no threat by predators.

Nature also allowed two headed snakes to be formed, such a specimen was studied here and it is documented that he suffered constantly due to compressed neck vertebrates.
The moment you eliminate natural selection from the scene, you are allowing snakes which probably would not have survived to reproduce. And even more so, you couple said snake with yet -another- sharing a similiar defect. The chances of this to occur in the wild are slim if not zero.

You cannot compare the two, you really cannot.
 
Kokopelli said:
"First off, this mutations was not PLANNED nor engineered, it just HAPPENED. So obviously we are looking at yet another experiment that Mother Nature is trying out to see how well it works. Nothing is inherently WRONG about such an animal coming into being, at all. It just IS."

I have to reply to this and I am sorry but that's just wrong. Mutations is 100% random, the thing that insures that defects which harm the snakes will not be passed on is natural selection. A barrier which you remove completely in captivity. The snake does not have to seek out water nor food, is under no threat by predators.

Nature also allowed two headed snakes to be formed, such a specimen was studied here and it is documented that he suffered constantly due to compressed neck vertebrates.
The moment you eliminate natural selection from the scene, you are allowing snakes which probably would not have survived to reproduce. And even more so, you couple said snake with yet -another- sharing a similiar defect. The chances of this to occur in the wild are slim if not zero.

You cannot compare the two, you really cannot.
Click to expand...
But just how is that different to amelanism? How many amels could survive in the wild?
(I really don't like the scale-less corn, but then I don't like butters or lavenders either, in the same way. As in, I don't like the way it looks)
 
The basic difference is that some such individuals have survived in the wild. Extremely rare- but it has occurred. Leucistic specimen were also recorded to have existed -and- reproduced. If I am not very much mistaken pretty much the same can be said for most single gene mutations/morphs.

But when it comes to scale-less. I don't believe that such a snake has any chance to survive in the wild. I don't know for a certainty that indeed he managed to overcome natural selection and by so doing, proved that he isn't suffering enough to hold him back from reaching adulthood.

Again, there's no obvious right or wrong here. We don't know yet. I am of the belief that it is better to assume that they are possibly suffering and not reproduce them than assume they are just fine and healthy and bring a generation of such snakes who might pay for my lack of will to study it further. It won't be me who pays the price, that's my problem.
 
Kokopelli said:
But when it comes to scale-less. I don't believe that such a snake has any chance to survive in the wild.
Click to expand...

You may want to go back and read the posts earlier in this thread relating to scaleless corns. They have been found surviving in the wild ...
 
Suncoast Herps said:
As a fairly large breeder of corns i have to admit that i find the pictures startlingly attractive. The health and care issues are a definite point of discussion but I do happen to have a little bit of firsthand knowledge about a couple of the points that have been brought up

1. Dr Bechtel was working with scaleless texas rats decades ago. as to their potential longevity, there are specimens in excess of 15 years of age right here in Florida. I have seen and handled these animals several times. The animals have always been outwardly healthy. Decreased lifespan does not seem to be an issue.

2. Like any mutation that changes the norm for an animal, there are undoubtedly side issues that can be a concern However, there have been more than one subadult with this mutation found in the wild. a few yellow rats have been collected from the south Okeechobee region. Those animals did manage to survive and grow for extended periods. It would lead one to believe that the animals do adapt to some extent. From a camouflage point, it is a far less serious negative than amelanism

While i agree that I am not really planning on running out and sinking a fortune into them, I do think that as captive bred animals they show a large amount of potential. I have dealt, over the years, with a lot of breeders/ keepers who were horrified that anyone would breed a recessive color mutation at all. There stance was that it should be the normal wild color morph only with no room for aesthetic alteration. The topic under discussion is the exact same premise, just taken one more rung up the ladder.

It all boils down to personal preference and choice though. like em...buy em. Don't like em...don't buy em.
Click to expand...
As you can see from this post, related species have been found in the wild, in scale-less condition.
 
Kokopelli said:
I have to reply to this and I am sorry but that's just wrong. Mutations is 100% random, the thing that insures that defects which harm the snakes will not be passed on is natural selection. A barrier which you remove completely in captivity.
Click to expand...

Actually, mutations are successful if it increases that organisms chance to have its genetic potential carried on into future generations. Captivity DOES change the rules. I doubt any single mutation has resulting a cornsnake having as much of an affect on future generations than albinism did in that first WC albino. Granted, I don't believe this counts since they wouldn't survive in nature WHERE the rules really haven't been changed that much, and I also believe that captive animals "don't count" in terms of ecology - especially if you exclude the THOUSANDS of escapes and releases over the years that have effected wild populations. That may or may not be a valid exclusion.

I'm just pointing out that your hypothesis has a big hole in it that might be a valid one - even though I don't personally accept the "hole" as valid. Also, you are boarding WAY too much into the territory of anthropomorphism for me to be able to argue with you on some points from stand supported by logic.

KJ
 
> I don't know for a certainty that indeed he managed to overcome natural selection

OK. You are the one pretending to be a scientist. How does a snake "overcome natural selection." How does one break those rules in the wild? What MAGIC does an animal use to make sure the rules of natural selection don't apply to it as an individual?????

> I am of the belief that it is better to assume that they are possibly suffering and not reproduce them than assume they are just fine and healthy

...and I am of the belief that I shouldn't have ANY strong bias until AFTER I study them. Your bias is as BAD as someone that says they'd breed them until they see otherwise in my book.

Here's a quote I've used in my email signature for a long time, and I believe it: "'A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone' - Charles Darwin."

KJ
 
KJUN said:
I agree. Redheads make up about 5% of the human population. Brunettes, of course, are a dime a dozen. Soooo, they DO outnumber redheads. I just prefer quality over quantity. ;)

Relax - I'm just kidding. My wife has brown hair. I have nothing against brunettes. I picked her for her "brains & personality." (Mike - if you are still reading this, don't comment!)
Click to expand...

Actually, I just started reading this today, I cant get the Aussie out of my head. not much brains or personality, but she was an Aussie (dirty blond) and was gorgeous.
 
mike17l said:
Actually, I just started reading this today, I cant get the Aussie out of my head. not much brains or personality, but she was an Aussie (dirty blond) and was gorgeous.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I still can't get one out of my head, either. Don't laugh, but her name REALLY was Sally. (I'm serious, Mike.) Personality? Very open. Didn't restrain her brains at all. Matter of fact, I met her at a scientific meeting - she worked with salties - and we discussed BCI construction of crocodilians. I didn't get in trouble for talking to her - I got in trouble for ignoring my wife for over an hour while I DID talk to Sally.....lol. Kasi knows how I feel about redheads, though.......sigh......:rofl:

Speaking of Sally, guess who is single again?
 
I am leaving this debate. If people are incapable of responding without suggesting that the other person is drunk/ the other person "pretends to be a scientist" this is a pure waste of my time.

If it is a debate you want, hold it with a minimal measure of respect. Else I see no point to counter something which is composed in such an immature manner.
 
Kokopelli said:
"First off, this mutations was not PLANNED nor engineered, it just HAPPENED. So obviously we are looking at yet another experiment that Mother Nature is trying out to see how well it works. Nothing is inherently WRONG about such an animal coming into being, at all. It just IS."

I have to reply to this and I am sorry but that's just wrong. Mutations is 100% random, the thing that insures that defects which harm the snakes will not be passed on is natural selection. A barrier which you remove completely in captivity. The snake does not have to seek out water nor food, is under no threat by predators.

Nature also allowed two headed snakes to be formed, such a specimen was studied here and it is documented that he suffered constantly due to compressed neck vertebrates.
The moment you eliminate natural selection from the scene, you are allowing snakes which probably would not have survived to reproduce. And even more so, you couple said snake with yet -another- sharing a similiar defect. The chances of this to occur in the wild are slim if not zero.

You cannot compare the two, you really cannot.
Click to expand...

Sure I can. Watch me...... :)

BTW, an opinion different from yours doesn't necessarily make it wrong, you know....

Humanity is a part of nature, and no one can dispute that we are a HUGE influence in it in nearly all aspects. It doesn't take much imagination to suppose that any genetic mutation that influences the survivability of an animal by becoming more attractive or useful to humans and therefore purposely propagated in captivity has reached the objective of the goal of mutations in the first place: To increase the odds of the SPECIES surviving. Sorry, but no, it is no longer NECESSARY for a mutation to have to increase the odds of all animals surviving in the WILD at all. It just has to increase the odds in any way POSSIBLE for the species to survive, EVEN if it means while necessarily in the care of human beings.

Heck, how many dog species could survive in the wild any longer? Has the progressive dependence that dogs have with humanity really proved to be detrimental to the survival of the species as a whole?

Mutations are nature's way of trying different strategies for survivability of a species in order to meet changing conditions in the environment. Mutations that make a species more compatible with coexisting with humanity is certainly likely to meet that goal.
 
Kokopelli said:
If it is a debate you want, hold it with a minimal measure of respect.
Click to expand...

Look in the mirror, hoss. Your CHANGE in attitude is why I ASKED if you were drunk (mostly in jest - but I WAS really wondering), and your tone towards others is why I treated YOU such as I did. Which, by the way, is better than the implications your directed towards others. I don't care what you called me - I found it all too humorous to get upset. I don't want to see you take your bat and go home, but be able to eat what you serve....and don't expect ANYONE with half a brain to accept YOUR opinions (which is all they are) without even YOU being able to support them - or even justify them in some cases.

You did make some valid points (and support them), and I recognized that. Mostly, though, you just struck me as a kid that got mad whenever he was no longer in the spotlight. Look here - the conversation gets away from you, so you start trying to rile people up again. I'm sorry, but it didn't work......lol.
 
KJUN said:
Look in the mirror, hoss. Your CHANGE in attitude is why I ASKED if you were drunk (mostly in jest - but I WAS really wondering), and your tone towards others is why I treated YOU such as I did. Which, by the way, is better than the implications your directed towards others. I don't care what you called me - I found it all too humorous to get upset. I don't want to see you take your bat and go home, but be able to eat what you serve....and don't expect ANYONE with half a brain to accept YOUR opinions (which is all they are) without even YOU being able to support them - or even justify them in some cases.

You did make some valid points (and support them), and I recognized that. Mostly, though, you just struck me as a kid that got mad whenever he was no longer in the spotlight. Look here - the conversation gets away from you, so you start trying to rile people up again. I'm sorry, but it didn't work......lol.
Click to expand...

I think it's amusing that someone who:
1- accuses another of being drunk
2- tries to be patronizing by pulling the "I am older than you and have bred snakes when you were playing with sand" routine
3- being generally rude

would have the knockers to actually blame anyone for the way this discussion went down. It's mind boggling, honestly.

-I- am intolerant to other's views?
I didn't see myself going around throwing baseless and immature accusations. If anything, I attacked an opinion, not the person who made them. You however proved yourself incapable of doing such. Any "Implications" you may have taken, you -chose- to take. It is up to the reader to interpret my words as him deems fit. Do not however blame -me- for the way you -chose- to take my words, yish.

Anyways, this has lost it's mark by miles by now. It's a charged subject, enough people gave it plenty of thought for it to not be reach a sudden closure because of one or even a hundred opinions. Nor will this cease the constant progress of these breedings.

I think we can all agree there's room for more consideration prior to action. Beyond that, I think there's really little to say.

I also really do think too many people chose to attack the person rather than the person's argument- which I believe directly resulted in the way this ended.

I don't mind holding a discussion, the moment it gets personal, it won't get anywhere.

As for your remark on "me wanting attention", I am not going to honor that with a reply.
 
It's 2 a.m here... enough people gave it enough thought for it not to reach a sudden closure.

now I is going to sleepz
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top