Re: RE: scaleless ball python (***DUW***) No that is not what I said at all. I said a lot of questions need answered before breeding... I did not come to any conclusions.
RE: Re: RE: scaleless ball python (***DUW***) I wonder of the vulnerability of this snake without scales to a) low humidity and B) UV light.
RE: Re: RE: scaleless ball python (***DUW***) they have eachother to rub sunscreen on skunky...they know all about this global warming concept.....
RE: Re: RE: scaleless ball python (***DUW***) Well I'm impressed, I posted this before work and I got off and came home to this! I got so many answers and so many new great questions. I agree with everyone that it's not at all something that should be taken advantage of before we know a little bit more about the actual condition. Certainly in the wrong hands if breeding is already going on and the "maybe hets" are being sold for a bunch of money. This is defintely an interesting subject...
The original snake in question according to a few other sites is apparently not completely scaleless - as is the case with other so-called scaleless snakes. Apparently this is only a dermal condition effecting the dorsal scales (the ones on the back and sides) but there are still belly scales partially if not entirely intact. As to whether or not this is a healthy condition is still not entirely certain, however in tests done with Gopher Snakes, there was not change in water retention or loss, nor that of appetite change recorded. There were no tests done to determine if this a recessive or dominant gene sequence - however it (the derma gopher) (to the best of my understanding) did succeed in breeding a female but the condition of the hatchlings is unknown as the information was not included in the study documents. I have a copy of the original gopher snake study available in *pdf format if anyone would like to see it I can e-mail it to you. Just send me an e-mail with "derma test" in the subject line to rhtreid@shaw.ca
the pics of the one snake that i posted look like there are no belly scales at all. anyway, very intersting info. it's good to know that there are at least some studies going on with this condition. i'm gonna email you for that pdf.
If you look real close onthe belly pics diablo you'll see some breaklines on the outer edges of the belly (scales), as I had mentioned this condition leaves the animal with belly scale, but partial only. I sent you what I have come across so far for study data - and I have a frined of mine at Berkley seeing what he can find for us - but it really doesn't look like this is something that is considered noteworthy to researchers. I have seen the pics of the "scaleless" rattlers etc that have been bred and in that line it has apparently proven as a possible pure strain - but that could again just be a "disease" or mutation being carried (like someone who is a disease carrier and passes it to an unborn child who then has the disease from birth). I agree with Shrap's line of thought , that this is something which requires more research. As for my personal opinion I agree that the person selling "HET" offspring of this animal is ludacris until the ine is proven. Should this animal be bred without further study - I would say no - but will this animal prove - unfortunately breeding is the only true way to know. If this turns out to be a viable strain that carries on as a true morph would I want one? Not sure - would like to see a few generations healthy first - but then maybe I might, once the price drops below a gagillion schamillion brazillion dollars. (I might consider a couple grand - lol)
i see small scales along the outside of the belly, but there appears to be no ventral scales at all. i haven't gotten the email yet, but it's probably just cuaght up in www land somewhere. if i still haven't gotten it in a couple hours i'll let you know.
Some issues ago (Oct. 2005)in Reptiles magazine their was an article on a scaleless Northern water snake. It was born in captivity from a wc female. It is the result of a simple ressive gene acording to a Berkley Dr. The term to describe them is "merolepid." They do shed but it is problematic as they can easily scratch themselves. It is believed that they would not survive long in the wild because of this. It only lived six years perhaps a result of it's genetic defect.
so do i... I know a lot of them are destructive to the animals in the wild and that's what they are referring too. The ones in captivity don't count to biologists. For example, an albino ball python would obviously be terrible in the wild and probably would be 99.9% destructive for that animal, but if you look at a granite or marble phase python, it would not effect their ability to blend in, in fact it may enhance it. That statement may hold true for some mutations, but certainly not all of them There is something I've been wondering. It seems like there are SOOO many ball python morphs and I know a lot of those came from humans breeding them together, but there are also a lot of those found in the wild. I've never been out of the states and I can't wait to do so one day, but what I'm thinking is when you are over searching for ball pythons, is the "normal" ball python in the wild the same as our normal ball python in captivity? Or is our normal the most common here because that was the first type to come out of the wild and a fairly common one and has made it huge in the pet industry just due to time? I'm just wondering how we know what the original or "normal" really looks like... Sorry, just thinking out loud...
and just to stay a little with the topic of this forum, I think the scaleless mutation would be very desctructive in the wild. And possibly as well in captivity. We also don't know what other ways it may be cutting the animals life short. Time will be the only way to tell.
Look at viruses and bacteria, the only reason they're still around and not knocked off by antibiotics and our immune systems is their incredible ability to mutate at remarkable rates. The continuing resistance to an increasing array of drugs is due purely to mutations. Whether youe beleive in evolution or not, it's your decision, but evolution is driven my mutation. Granted, most mutations will be deleterious, but mutations that convey an adaptive advantage are kept and selected for. You and I wouldnt be here today if it wasnt for mutations. Of course this can go on forever... BTW..I am a biologist
well do you think there is a diffrence between mutations and evolutionary changes? i mean evolutionary changes being things like a giraffes long neck or something and mutations being snakes with 2 heads and what not? im not a biologist but i do discuss this topic with them from time to time.
A lot of new species have come from defects or mutations. Some are simply because they aid in survival(hunting ability, camaflouge, etc). And some, we don't know why nature selected them to "evolve slightly". If the animal changes enough, and the genes stick from generation to generation, the animal may become a new species. I don't beleive this deformation has any way of helping it survive. If anything I think it kind of handi-caps the creature. Over time when an animal comes out deformed or mutated, I beleive, it is for a reason. I think it is a test. A test to see what the animal can change to better it's chances of survival. If it passes the test, the animal breeds and passes on it's new gene, and enough animals become this way(this is over a long period of time), it may be a new species. 500, I think evolutionary changes happen over thousands of years. Mutations happen over a few months or whatever the time it is in the egg. Something goes "wrong" while the snake is developing making it the way it is. Though, they are kind of the same way if you think about it. After a long period of time, slight mutations can become evolutionary changes, evolving the animal to either a minor change, or possibly a major change. Most evolvements are beneficial to life of the animal, but some seem to have no help what so ever.
Evolution in the truest sense is driven my mutation. The only reason we see giraffes with long necks is that the mutations conveying that phenotype provided it with a selective advantage, and so was selected for. Bare in mind that the evolution to what we recognize now as a giraffe took hundreds of thousands of years to millions of years. Double-headed snakes are spontaneous mutations that probably would be selected against in nature. The fitness cost in having two heads would probably prohibit further selection, and so in this case would be an evolutionary dead-end, ie. destructive as you put it.
Yes the Normals here and the Normals there are pretty much the same. Normals are imported by the tens of thousands into North America every year. 98% of the Normals in pets stores nationwide are imported directly from Africa.
