Osborne, indeed we ultimately lack research about the subject.
1 Like
I don’t breed animals with defects or breed for defects either. I just don’t want misinformation to be spread that the topic at hand, “snakes missing eyes”, is a genetic defect.
If anyone has solid evidence this is genetic then please step forward. I’m only trying to help uncover and spread the truth. If this defect is due to environmental causes as I suspect, and not due to choice in pairings- then we should figure that out, to prevent anyone from continuing to hatch them.
3 Likes
Agreed. I definitely don’t want to produce them thats why I posted this question. I’m thinking its incubation as well but wanted more input, thoughts, opinions on the subject
2 Likes
It’s important to note that by dismissing the eyeless phenotype as an incubation error you are neglecting to take into account the affect of the environment (especially during a critical period of development) on genetics. While average layperson thinks of genetics as just the DNA backbone, in reality, it encompasses much, much more. There’s now a very exciting developing body of research that shows how various forms of environmental trauma can be inherited and affect later generations through epigenetic inheritance as well (Review of epigenetic inheritance).
-
RNA-mediated non-mendelian inheritance of an epigenetic change in the mouse
-
Mating can initiate stable RNA silencing that overcomes epigenetic recover
-
Etc and so forth - there’s a LOT of papers on this topic
For this reason not only would I ever breed a snake with a clear malformation, but also an animal that had been malnourished or suffered from any kind of apparent developmental defect, because I want to stack the deck in favor of having healthy offpsring that will thrive.
8 Likes
This is obviously a sensitive topic.
Feel free to respond to something by disagreeing with it. That’s fine. But remember to criticize ideas, not people.
Please avoid:
Name-calling
Ad hominem attacks
Responding to a post’s tone instead of its actual content
Knee-jerk contradiction
Instead, provide reasoned counter-arguments that improve the conversation.
Before commenting, please think your response through, research the topic using multiple sources and make your OWN judgement.
Let’s discuss this properly!
5 Likes
If this is the case, and environmental factors aka incubation conditions/error contribute to the regulation of certain epigenetic pathways leading to the malformation of eyes … then I would argue that the remedy might be finding if and what set of environmental conditions allow these animals to develop properly, and potentially change our incubation methods as a whole for the better. Osborne reptiles suggested CO2 build up might be a contributing environmental factor, which is also plausible. We might increase our tub size, or practice careful ventilation and see if that leads to improvement before writing off all your breeders.
My understanding is we’re trying to find why “no eyes” happens so it can be stopped, I’m not personally arguing in support of breeding snakes with no eyes.
Is there any chance it could just be down to lack of luck and nothing to do with either?
I’m not questioning anyone ideas, just curious!
2 Likes
I just want to say thank you to all in this topic. It’s great to read different opinions.
I stated earlier my friend suggested breeding the pair a second time to see if it’s truly genetic. That friend and I both worked for NERD for years. I don’t believe anyone here wants to produce defects, but rather try to discover what may!
People have to try, multiple times and multiple ways in order to make the correct conclusions on some of these mutations. If we didn’t we would never breed Caramels, Spiders, Cinnamons, Womas, Champagnes after the first discovered defect, and we wouldn’t know what causes them. It’s because of these breeders who took the chances to conclude what we know today!
What would be BAD, is if someone knowingly only breeds defective mutations, you know…after all the studies have been concluded. But did it anyways!
1 Like
I don’t feel like this is correct at all. A lot of these continued breedings where due to the fact breeders didn’t share information about flaws so people were unknowingly breeding these genes not knowing defects had been discovered. Caramel especially and the wobble genes are neuro issues not visual physical defects. And a lot of breeders weren’t taking chances they were knowingly breeding defects because they had to much money invested.
2 Likes
Ok, if you say so. Like I said…I worked at NERD…20 years ago!
If you feel they didn’t share anything, your wrong! They did, but between breeders and they haven’t figured it out and didn’t want to publicly conclude so soon.
They also shared a ton of information that has been since proven incorrect. For example everything they said about hgw.
Since proven incorrect. Which is why if we don’t studied what’s going on we cannot conclude therefore nobody will learn any true findings.
Was never correct to begin with they but they put out this information, even when presented with scientific facts they continued to put it out there. Soul sucker was a failed super that granite couldn’t be isolated. How did this help the hobby at all? People still quote this misinformation.
I agree, which makes my point. We need to KEEP studying what has not been PROVEN. And even after we think we know the answer someone comes along with new info and potentially debunks it.
Look at the Banana/CG, figuring out how the sex ratio was working. Years of breeding. Granted it’s not a defect.
I hatched two babies with one eye each in all my years of breeding snakes. Can anyone here definitely tell me it’s genetic! Can they PROVE IT, or is it just an accident or I screwed up, or my incubator fluctuated toooo much. IDK
1 Like
It’s everyone’s right to conduct studies if they please. But to continue to put out information when science has proven it wrong is just dishonest and not good for the hobby.
1 Like
Some things may never be answered
But we have to try
Hate me or not, I’m going to try to figure it out myself and not assume. We are reproducing genetic defects every day for our pleasure so as I’ve said before, please don’t hate on those of us that want to know. It isn’t serving an positivity to the outcome. This is the exact sort of topic that makes me consider not contributing. People throwing shade for testing science…but because it isn’t in a controlled lab it isn’t science, right?
5 Likes
Definitely don’t hate you for it Brandon. You have been doing this way longer than me and have produced way more snakes than I probably ever will. So I value your input far more experiencedd than myself. My point was I myself am not breeding animals with visual flaws. This is my personal choice but yes I breed the spider gene complex. My personal stance is that is a neuro issue not a physical issue. This is also my opinion I realize and accept some people won’t agree with either or both. But we can’t just ignore science just because it doesn’t fit in with our plans.
2 Likes
“But we can’t just ignore science just because it doesn’t fit in with our plans.”
That’s exactly what is being done when you choose not to Seek the answer. Having eyeless snakes isn’t the goal. It’s the opposite of the goal and the exact reason I chose to test it. So far my results are non-genetic in all I’ve seen personally. In my humble opinion, it is more unethical, since that word gets thrown around here often, to not try to prove this genetic or not. My reasons are for the greater good of the hobby.
4 Likes
Ok the problem is unless you are meeting the criteria for conducting proper scientific studies the information is basically useless besides for your personal use. My collection isn’t large enough to conduct proper studies. I’m sure there are plenty of peoples who are. But if your going to do serious studies we need to do them properly and document them properly so they provide viable, verifiable, and accepted information for the hobby.