• 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.

June 1st photo shoot

one eyed/?

i think the cloures go through the eye so it looks like a one eyed snake?!!?wel...really beautiful snakes..
love the okeetee....
 
No, I think it really is one-eyed! Where the eye should be there is just scales over that area, looks like a birth defect!
 
A 'one-eyed snake' brings to mind a load of double entendres, but I'll let 'em lay, since this is a G-rated, family forum.;)
 
Actually, the fact that Fred is Jack's brother but has produced no one-eyed offspring does not prove that the defect is not genetic. If Fred is a carrier of the gene, he would have to be bred to another snake that also carried the gene (either as a het or a homo).

If Fred were het for one-eye, and bred to a one-eyed snake, half the clutch (statisically) would be one-eyed. If he were bred to a snake that was also het for one-eye, only one quarter of the clutch would (again, statistically) be one-eyed and half of them would be het for the trait. If Fred were bred to a snake that is not at all het for one-eye, then all of his offspring would be normal looking, but half of them would be het for one-eye.

However, even if Fred is not at all het for one-eye, that still does not prove that this is a genetic defect. You have to figure that Jack and Fred's parents were not one-eyed (or else why were they bred at all???), and so they may both have been het for the trait. If so, 25% of a clutch between het animals would be completely normal. Fred could be 100% normal, Jack could be homo one-eyed, and the trait is still a genetic defect.

In reality, the only way to be certain that Jack's problem is or is not genetic is to undergo breeding trials. However, I have to wonder why one would do that. If it is proven to be genetic, you'd really have to destroy all of the produced animals to keep them from spreading the gene. If it's not proven to be genetic, you'd still have to ask yourself if it really isn't genetic or was your luck just really bad in your trials (which can easily be the case, BTW!).

So, I think I would just assume that Jack's condition IS genetic and never breed him or any animal associated with that bloodline. That would be how I would handle it if such a defomity showed up in my stock, anyway. You'll have to do what you think is best for yourself.
 
First of all, you need to keep a civil tongue in your head. Not all of us are as easy going as I am.

Second I did not say that the one-eye problem from which Jack suffers IS genetic. What I said was that you cannot PROVE that it is not, based solely on what little evidence you have at your disposal! It's like saying that you have two normal corns, and you breed them together. In the first clutch, they produce normals, amels, and aneries. Then in the second clutch, they produce normals, amels, aneries, AND one little snow corn. Your conclusion based upon the "logic" you've used concerning Jack???? Why, the snow corn was not genetically produced, and it must have been due to improper incubation, of course!!!

Obviously, that would be a false assumption on your part, and the facts of the matter would be vastly different than your assertions. However, based on the evidence, you would be forced to draw that conclusion, if you used the same thinking you are using about Jack's eye problem. So, before you start calling me names, perhaps you should brush up on your mendelian genetics, logic, and rational thinking skills. Otherwise, you just look foolish to anyone who can actually think beyond the scope of emotionalistic hyperbole.

Finally, you have no right to question my love for my animals or to suggest that I am merely in it for the profit (as if there were any!!!) in breeding cornsnakes! You call ME arrogant?!?!? Actually, I would destroy any animal that had an obviously detrimental defect that might be geneitc BEFORE I would sell it as a possible breeder. How heartless of YOU to produce snakes that may very well have a recessive defect hidden in their genes and then turn them lose on the unsuspecting public! What are YOU going to tell everyone that has some of your animal's descendants, if they start hatching out one-eyed cornsnakes at predictable percentages in a few generations?? Hmmmm???

You mentioned that some of the babies produced by this breeder also had kinks. OK, there are some who suspect very strongly that improper incubation temps are the primary reason for kinking. Others, though, say that it is from a lack of proper vitamin upkeep of the gravid female. However, I know of no breeders that are willing to breed severly kinked animals for fear of producing and reproducing genetically flawed animals!!! Does that mean it IS a genetic flaw? No, it means that people are not willing to take the chance that it is!

Look, it may very well be the case that your animal is suffering from a non-genetic defect, but THERE IS NO WAY FOR YOU TO KNOW THAT WITHOUT BREEDING TRIALS!!!!!! Furthermore, given what I have already outlined about the total lack of responsibility of producing a whole herd of possible genetic rejects, for you to attempt to carry out those breeding trials without the preconcieved notion of destroying all of the hets and possible hets if the condition proves genetic, is absolutely irresponsibe! Finally, for you to be willing to then sell those normal looking snakes you produce without knowing for certain what is causing the defect to show up is something that says a great deal about your character to all who will ever read this thread . . .good job!

:mad:
 
BLCKKAT

CHILL!!!

I am outraged by your comments towards Darin. I know him from some business weve done and from speaking with him on the phone. You are so far out of line.

Darin was giving us a genetics lesson, and I for one realized some things I had'nt thought of before by reading his post.

Sorry Darin you had to be treated that way. Most of us know what kind of a snake keeper you are and you didnt deserve that. Youve been a great asset here and, I for one, appreciate it.
 
Whoa Blckkat, happy place......

WOW! Somebody has a problem playing with others and it doesn't appear to be an isolated incident:

http://www.cornsnakes.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5848


I think Darin brings out a valid point. This snake was up for sale:

http://www.cornsnakes.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5474

I for one would be rather upset had I purchased it based on your description and later found out that there were other genetic "issues" at work within the same clutch.

IMO, there is a BIG difference between not respecting life and being a responsible breeder that chooses not to pass on genetic faults to subsequent generations of a captive population.

That is my .02.
 
Last edited:
Hey Darin, I had to comment on the "eyelessness being genetic" theory.

(Heh, this thread has gone way off track, eh?)

As far as the inheritance patterns/logic involved and all the breeding trials you mentioned, I agree.

However, I would suspect that the gene(s) involved in "eye formation" are not doubled up. That is, I doubt there's gene for "make a right eye" and another gene for "make a left eye." My guess is that in animals that have bilateral (or radial) symmetry that there's only one set of genes which simply gets expressed away from the central axis. (This is probably already proven one way or the other, and I'd love to hear which way it would be. I would suspect that the human brain is one of the few exceptions to that.)

An interesting experiment involved a mutation in fruit flies which caused them to be born with no eyes. They spliced this gene into mice and ended up with mice which were born with no eyes. That's going across phyla!

(Cool stuff! Just goes to show how much of the blueprint is kept throughout the process of evolution. :))

So there probably is an "eyeless" mutation that could affect corns, but IMO it would affect both eyes.

Heh, and if such "one side or the other" genes existed, you just KNOW that there'd be at least one breed of dog with left legs half the length of the right legs. ;)

-----

Also, on the kinking thing, I'm producing a clutch of what will most likely be kingsnake food this year. To me, it's important to figure out what's going on with this, so that maybe we could isolate whatever the cause or causes are and reduce or eliminate the problem. I bred a kinked 2000 normal male to his mother, and those eggs are due to hatch during the next new moon.

My own theory on kinking is that it's not a simple-recessive trait. I think there are genetic influences that combine with nutritional and incubation conditions, which make it possible and/or likely for kinking to occur.

I also don't think that being kinked necessarily has any relationship to whether or not an individual has inherited any "kink-producing" genes. For example, there could be a nutrient which is underproduced or underabsorbed, but not enough to affect a female expressing the "trait," so this female would be normal-looking.

However, this female may end up not being able to supply its eggs with enough of that nutrient. Regardless of whether the individual in that egg inherited the "gene" it could still be deprived of that nutrient and thus have problems developing.

I also have a feeling that there's something else going on... eggs from certain clutches (certain mothers, seems like) have a tendency to "harden" for some unknown reason during incubation. When this happens, a variable amount of the liquid contents of the egg will become something resembling a gel, like a hard-boiled egg. These eggs either don't hatch, or end up with starved/kinked hatchlings. (IMO lending more credence to my thought that kinking has a nutritional component.)

Oh, and Cav, I agree with that last paragraph. :)
 
***However, I would suspect that the gene(s) involved in "eye formation" are not doubled up. That is, I doubt there's gene for "make a right eye" and another gene for "make a left eye." My guess is that in animals that have bilateral (or radial) symmetry that there's only one set of genes which simply gets expressed away from the central axis. (This is probably already proven one way or the other, and I'd love to hear which way it would be. I would suspect that the human brain is one of the few exceptions to that.)
***

I just have a question for you on this. You mean thus it's not genetic, correct? He nor his brother produced any one-eyed or kinked babies. If I had wanted to do breeding trials, could I simply use they're sister to skip the multi generational breeding? I wouldn't have my corns breed just for the sake of an experiment. and I also wouldn't be so heartless as to destroy there clutch. NO MATTER WHAT. Well, unless of course an animal was obviously suffering, then I would have to I guess.
 
Serp,

I totally agree with you. If everyone will note, I never said that this WAS a genetic problem (anymore than I would assert that kinking is a definitive genetic problem). ALL I ever said was that the evidence provided in the initial statements were not PROOF that it was NOT a genetic problem! I stand by that.

As to whether it is more ethical to euthanize snakes carrying a gene that is detrimental to their health than it is to sell said gene carriers to an unsuspecting public . . .Well, I stand by my ethics just fine, and my customers have no problems with me because of that.

Everyone else will just have to make up their own minds about blkkat's position on their own. I know I have.
 
By the way, I appreciate the kind words of support from those who jumped to my aid! It's nice to be known for something good in this business, and even nicer for others to say so. Thanks!

:p
 
Serpwidgets said:

Also, on the kinking thing, I'm producing a clutch of what will most likely be kingsnake food this year. To me, it's important to figure out what's going on with this, so that maybe we could isolate whatever the cause or causes are and reduce or eliminate the problem. I bred a kinked 2000 normal male to his mother, and those eggs are due to hatch during the next new moon.

My own theory on kinking is that it's not a simple-recessive trait. I think there are genetic influences that combine with nutritional and incubation conditions, which make it possible and/or likely for kinking to occur.

I also don't think that being kinked necessarily has any relationship to whether or not an individual has inherited any "kink-producing" genes. For example, there could be a nutrient which is underproduced or underabsorbed, but not enough to affect a female expressing the "trait," so this female would be normal-looking.
Click to expand...

I think kinking is influenced by a lot more than genetics. Last year with all, except for one, of my first clutches I produced 100 % non kinked babies. Then just a couple of months later I hatched a bunch of kinked second clutch babies. These babies all had the same parents but something caused them to be kinked.
Theory #1 is perhaps, being the second clutch, the yolks lacked enough nutrition.
Theory # 2 is that since my incubator was set a little higher the second time (84 instead of 82) perhaps temp spikes were just that much higher.
Theory #3 with the second clutches, I didn't have much time to attend to the eggs and as some of them grew the moss around them got quite compacted. Could not "fluffing" the medium cause it? Then again...I am sure no one goes out and "fluffs" the stuff for wild corns, earthworms? :)
Here are some results....
Milksnake Phase Motley.... First Clutch=12 eggs all hatched healthy Second Clutch= 6 eggs only 2 hatched and those 2 were kinked
Upper Keys x Hypo....First Clutch=20 eggs all hatched healthy Second Clutch= 20 eggs only 7 hatched healthy and one hatched kinked
Incidentally I also had a female with her first clutch (she was a late breeder) in the same incubator as the other second clutches and her entire clutch died I cut one egg open that made it to the end and it was kinked.
I really figured it must have been a tempreture spike or lack of nutrition.
This year I have two incubators set up and of course one of the incubators had a freak temp spike up to 90 degrees for a short time. Of course in this incubator was the eggs from the same female that lost her first clutch last year, which again have slowly been dieing off one by one. The weird thing is, when I cut the eggs open, there is no visible embyro even 4, 5 weeks into incubation, which makes me think maybe temps are not the cause for this particular clutch. Candling the eggs, there are still some that look like they are developing fine and there are some where they just look empty. They are due in about 2 weeks I am very curious as to what will happen.
The other strange thing is, in the incubator with the temp spike last year, it seemed devestating to most of the eggs but seven hatchlings did come out as healthy as could be. Was it in thier genetics to be more hardy? Also in this years temp spike, I have four clutches in that incubator, 2 have seemed to suffer losses because of it and 2 have had no losses so far. Then again, one of the 2 that have been uneffected belong to the Milksnake Phase Motley that had her second clutch effected by a heat spike last year. So that doesn't make sense to me either.
Perhaps the temp range at which an egg can tolerate is somewhat heritable. Maybe temp spikes can be more damaging at certain stages of development than others. Maybe lack of nutriton can cause kinks or causes eggs to be more effected by temp spikes???
Anyway sorry for rambling...I am still trying to figure this one out. I am leaning more towards gentics causing how sensitive the eggs are to the enviornment, instead of the genetics causing kinks more directly. But it is all theory.:)
 
Carol:
Perhaps the temp range at which an egg can tolerate is somewhat heritable. Maybe temp spikes can be more damaging at certain stages of development than others. Maybe lack of nutriton can cause kinks or causes eggs to be more effected by temp spikes???
Click to expand...
Ya, that's my theory so far, too. I think what may be heritable is not the kinking itself, but the predisposition to produce kinked hatchlings, and especially under certain conditions. And another factor that is rarely mentioned could be the lack of variety in the standard captive diet. But there's still lots of debate over that. ;)

---------------

blckkat:
I just have a question for you on this. You mean thus it's not genetic, correct? He nor his brother produced any one-eyed or kinked babies. If I had wanted to do breeding trials, could I simply use they're sister to skip the multi generational breeding?
Click to expand...
I mean thus it is my opinion that it's probably not genetic. As Darin said, if it's a recessive trait, it doesn't matter what his sister or brother will ever produce. Unless one of the parents also has the same defect, his siblings would only be "possible" carriers of the gene, and to produce offspring expressing a recessive trait, BOTH parents must contribute that gene.

I wouldn't have my corns breed just for the sake of an experiment.
Click to expand...
As I said, my goal is to try to figure out what is behind the kinking to begin with, so that hopefully someday we can find ways to stop it from happening. I'm not at ease with the prospect of future generations of corns continuing to be hatched with such problems. I'm sorry that you cannot see past the next 5 minutes.

and I also wouldn't be so heartless as to destroy there clutch. NO MATTER WHAT.
Click to expand...
No? I guess you and your snakes are vegans, then, eh? You're more than happy to have someone breed mice just for the sake of "destroying" entire litters, so that you can feed your snake. Hypocrite.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top