Jon, not to criticize, but it seems that you really want to make a
definitive statement here. I am sure that a geneticist could quantify the
results of inbreeding to the nth generation, but unless we happen to have
one among us we don't know for sure what the actual perils of inbreeding
are.
Having said that, I personally prefer captive-bred animals to be as close to
wild as possible. I don't want to disenfranchise any breeders, but I prefer
a dark phase burmese python to an albino. People in the Pacific Rim might
feel otherwise. I don't keep snakes these days, btw.
I disagree with any kind of disparagement of other collectors, but I agree
that blanket statements are to be avoided in all cases :) And since I'm
disagreeing with some things, It is my opinion that lizard species are more
like each other than not.
Jon, I think your message was very well thought-out and well-written, and
that it introduced a lot of ideas to think about. I'm also always looking
for a "definitive" answer, even though these are few and far between.
Reading messages from other people often provides techniques that I didn't
know and general ideas that keep me on the track. Even beginners (like me)
can often observe things about their animals or ask questions that benefit
me.
I have forgotten what the initial message was - I guess inbreeding in
pictus. I guess my take on this is that if you're breeding for a certain
trait, inbreeding, mostly offspring to parent, is useful enough to be done,
but if you're just breeding more of the same, or using the healthiest,
fastest-growing, biggest, whatever, it pays to mix up your stock - get it
from different places. Conservationists worry about the gene pool when the
number of a species gets too low.
I'm looking forward to reading more from you. I'm not breeding right now -
I'm mostly interested in Leopard Gecko husbandry. Peace.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon & Stacy Boone" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 9:18 PM
Subject: RE: [Gecko] pictus inbreeding
> << It's not uncommon in nature for animals to live in arrangements such
> that
> most of the conspecifics they meet are close relatives. In cases like
> this,
> any "bad" genes are quickly removed from the gene pool, and further
> inbreeding
> is harmless.>>
>
> Perhaps, but with no certainty. With the tendency for so many species of
> animals to have their habitats destroyed or altered, I am sure this
happens
> to a great degree with a number of species, whereby species are shut off
to
> the permeation of genetically new creatures. This hobby is essentially 35
> years old in the US, and it is difficult to ascertain theories which apply
> to a millenium of factors, millions of years of evolutionary events, and
> other unknown issues. But in a hobby with limited resources, a feeble
> understanding of inbreeding, and the tendency to develop blanket
statements
> for a family of nearly 1000 species/subspecies, who really wants to test
> inbreeding? We pride ourselves in producing quality offspring with an a
> ppropriate number of limbs. There are already concerns of inbreeding
> surrounding certain species of Rhacodactylus, that have certainly never
> been inbred to the 30th generation. Some species are undeniably more
> sensitive to such practices. Most people are in this hobby for a short
> period of time, whereby their experiences (largely) cannot be accurately
> calculated and inserted into any definitive equations. For yet others who
> keep geckos for a few years, then on to monitors and a few select pythons,
> then on to something else new and exciting, their experiences are also
> plagued with shortcomings. For the remainders, who by various reasons,
stay
> in the 'gecko hobby' for years, we are limited by their attentiveness to
> such particulars and the accuracy/error thereof. We as gecko breeders
have
> a lot to learn, and apparently the need to convince ourselves that such
> pitiful simplicity cannot apply to a multitude of species remains.
> Although never recorded, I am certain that many E. macularius have been
> inbred to ear-ringing levels. Yet they are members of an entirely
> different tribe (Family), Eublepharinae, so distinct that some authors
> consider them as much geckos as do others in lumping geckos and pygopods
> together.
>
> << An extreme example are island endemic species, in which the entire
> population
> for the history of the species may never have been more than a few dozen
> individuals>>
>
> A tendency for waif species introduced into a new environment, such as a
> hitherto non-colonized island, is to not only inbreed but speciate under
> the new pressures of the environment (ie. Tarentola in the Americas). By
> the way, where did the few dozen individuals come from? During this
> fertile time in which so much is available, via breeders and importers, it
> would be foolish to not take advantage of the opportunities of acquiring
> further 'bloodlines'.
>
> Lastly, it may be said that some species, and perhaps many species, may be
> inbred without defects for an alarming number of generations. But when the
> possibility for additional gene lines close and defects set in what to do
> next? In an ideal sense, why knowingly or unknowingly subject our
colonies
> and hobby to the known problems associated with inbreeding? The short
> answer is, like David Lawrence said " there are problems inherent with
> inbreeding (ALMOST) anything!! It should be avoided whenever possible."
>
>
>
> Jon
>
> ######################################################################
> THE GLOBAL GECKO ASSOCIATION LISTSERV
> WebSite: http://www.gekkota.com
> The GGA takes no responsibility for the contents of these postings.
> ######################################################################
>
>
