You could say that, but then, you can say anything.



What actually occurs is, in nature, the animals are culled each and every year for thousands of years. So only the strong, of the strong of the strong pass their genes. So I do disagree with you. Nature is cruel, it culls for any and all reasons, the weak, are erased and erased and erased. A phenotype hognose, is the product of hundreds to thousands of years of culling. Again, I doubt they are suppose to be individuals that just don't want to feed.



In captivity, those hardwire genetics of survival are very hard to modify, it can be done, but such work is self correcting, if it produces deleterious genetics, it stops existing



Of course color and pattern are fluid, in both captivity and nature. Those are very loose genes. Which is why they are not used for taxonomy.



All the line and inbreeding normally does not effect those hardwired genes, and if it did, there would be a huge and consistent failure. Ask anyone that's expert in genetics.



Weak individuals are common due to poor support, poor incubation, etc, Those are husbandry issues.



There is absolutely no evidence that what we are talking about is a genetic issue.



You of all people who excels in being totally accurate, are assuming that some are just going to die and that's the way it is? That is not accurate or even reasonable in any way. That type of statement is a product of naivety.



Doing your genetics, your envolved in math. With that in mind, The chance these UNRELATED animals are genetic misfits, is nearly zero. They chance that its husbandry related in very very high.



Just the fact that all keepers are individuals and do not practice the exact same husbandry, even if they try, truly increases the chance its husbandry related.



If you are breeding misfits to misfits and that results in weak hatchlings, then that is a poor husbandry practice, is it not?



End of part 1

[ Show Entire Thread ]