>>...After going back to Dr. Garstka with the albinos we came to the conclusion that one of his two adult males was a het sired by an albino in the wild

Terry, I have a question. Why was the conclusion that it was sired by an amel? Isn't it more likely the captured adult male was a het that picked up the gene from a het mother or father? As I understand it, the fluke, or mutation, or genetic accident that leads to a new morph occurs when a single gene deviates--in this case, when a single gene mutates into an amel gene. (as opposed to believing that the first animal in an amel line was a visual, phenotypical amel, with two amel genes, which seems much less likely to me). That single recessive amel gene is then passed along until it two such heterozygous critters come into breeding contact in the wild and/or, as in this case, end up paired together in captivity.

In other words, it's entirely possible that an amel appearing in captivity could be the first amel of its kind. At a minimum, there's no reason to believe there had to be an amel in the wild preceding the captive appearance.

The genetic disturbance that produced the first, mutant amel gene could have occurred only a few years earlier--or centuries earlier. Insight into those circumstances would come from field observations and test breedings (in the absence of DNA testing) to see how widespread the recessive gene is in the wild population.

I'm not trying to challenge your and Dr G's conclusion. Rather, I'm just interested in how this scenario re: morph occurrence sounds to the rest of you.

[ Show Entire Thread ]