>>Most normal looking "Pet" Burmese Pythons are byproducts of captive genetic inbreeding specifically for desired morphological traits.
>>
>>The probability that normal looking Burmese found in the wild would be heterozygous for at least one identifiable morphological trait should be at least 50%, if they were indeed released by pet owners as has been claimed.

Not necessarily, especially if the majority of the founding introductions were from the 80s or 90s.

But in any case, their statement in the introduction -- "Because pythons have been sampled from geographically disparate locations in Everglades National Park (Snow, 2006), it is believed that these introductions are the result of several instances of pet release" -- doesn't have any effect on their DNA results.

>>If "Pet" Burmese released by the public are indeed breeding in South Florida, why has practically zero Burmese Morphs if any been found?

Maybe because the morphs are more expensive and also more easily saleable, and thus are less likely to be released? I dunno! I have no idea, myself, whether the majority of the founding escapees are from private owners or damaged import or breeding facilities. It would be interesting to do further DNA research to try to figure that out, though.
-----
----

0.1 Peruvian rainbow boa (Amaru)
2.0 Brazilian rainbow boas (TBA)
0.3 Honduran milksnakes (Chicchan, Chanir, Hari)
1.0 Thayeri kingsnake (TBA)
2.7 corns (Cetto, Tolosa, TBA)
1,000,000.1,000,000 other critters

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Hide Replies ]