Just shooting from the hip, I think your assumption - that human inbreeding causes overt teratology but animal inbreeding does not - is false.
Animal breeders understand the principles of genetics and see the problems of "breeding too closely." Dog breeders decry "backyard breeders" because they seldom pay attention to important genetic considerations, with the result that some breeds are considered "ruined." But even professional breeders know they can only try to play God. Some examples that come to mind are German Shepherds' congenitally dislocated hips, Dalmations' blindness, Miniature Poodles' nervousness... Some animal breeding is done intentionally to try (emphasis on TRY) to encourage strong traits, but the outcomes can't be predicted with absolute certainty. Sometimes they'll get a whole litter of animals with one parent's slightly noticeable flaw greatly exacerbated. That is, a flaw that may seem slight in one animal may come out even more strongly in offspring, thus of course, following the principles of genetics. Beth Benoit University System of New Hampshire on 3/21/02 3:30 PM, Ferguson, Sherry at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > It's not really teaching in psych-related, but: > > An interesting discussion in the sauna the other day led me to wonder about > inbreeding. Brother/sister matings are common in rodents and don't seem to > cause any overt teratology. But in humans, they do. What about other > animals? Nonhuman primates, for example? Anyone know? > > Sherry Ferguson, Ph.D > Research Psychologist > National Center for Toxicological Research/FDA > 3900 NCTR Road > Jefferson, AR 72079 > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
