The new "Zero TM"( also apparently an anery form) shows that a pair of boas from a small population of wc animals can have two recessive mutations and make a designer snake. From this tiny sample one can only imagine the many recessive, dominant, and codominant mutations and the countless possibilities of designer morphs coming from wild origins in a single population.



The fact that these mutations are found in a variety of species in the snake world is not an artifact of captivity it reflects what exists in the wild. An example of this: the “white sided” mutation found in Tiger snakes, Blood Pythons, rats snakes, pine snakes, king snakes, and rattlesnakes. That the Motley mutation would appear in Argentines, Colombians, and Central American Boas is not a huge leap.



There is no difference between albinos or any other recessive mutation coming from a wcwb het female and being the start of a lineage of albinos in captivity and the "Zero TM" animal.



If an albino and hypo snake from the original Leopard population were to be found you could make designer sunglow Leopards, which theoretically could be found in the wild. They would be no different from your "Zero Anery" TM.



Captive breeding today of morphs from distinct populations of course are ideal as would be all locality matching where possible. But the technology today certainly is more than capable of distinguishing animals that are a result of two different species being the parents.



Here is a timely article for your discussion



http://news.yahoo.com/extinct-galapagos-tortoise-reappears-173106567.html



A sample of one litter of albino boas being born is a single data point. Testing statistical significance in terms of the viability of the albino or any other mutation would require more than a single data point.

[ Show Entire Thread ]