>>>>First, you didn't answer my question. How many kinked up hatchlings do you see in the wild?



No idea.



>>"to close-by locales" Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the first one west of Fresno will be about 7 to 10 miles and the next one 12 or so and the next one would be about 17 miles. If they started to drift naturally outside their range, I would think they would turn up closer and more often near that fringe.



>>I saw a heck of a lot more people "not" hunting from 77 to 87 than I see "not" hunting there now. If they crossed the road back then, there would have been a lot more people there to "not" see them.



Not sure I follow your logic. Would anyone "not" hunting have reported them? LOL



But completely besides that possibility, we can't forget that there is such a thing as an allele going to fixation in a population. In other words, perhaps there are more Blondes now than there were then. No evolution would mean that the allele frequency would stay exactly the same throughout every succeeding generation of animals.



>>I have collected 2 gravid female blonds, both laid and produced 100% blond babies. As you know, that means they bred to a blond male.



Yeah, or a Het (thought maybe not as likely as what you suggest).



The chances of that are astronomical, so is that a sign of natural selective breeding for a particular color morph?



Yeah, good point. But for me to answer would be stealing some of my thunder for my TPRS talk this weekend. LOL I'll definitely post my ideas on this soon, if anyone's still keen to talk about them. Goodness knows I'll flap my yap if I have an ear to listen. haha



>>Hey Dusty, as for your Question, email me and I will answer it.



Cool. Thank you, Rick.



Dusty
Suboc.com

[ Show Entire Thread ]