Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I've been thinking about this lately and although I don't have any hard evidence, a number of factors have me thinking that colour doesn't matter for ball pythons. The first reason I think that this is true is that they are nocturnal. At night vision is in black and white so bright colours like orange and yellow will just be grey. White could be a problem but I don't think predators would see white as equalling food because the majority of food items are not white. In piebalds it might even help by breaking up the animal's outline. Another bit of circumstantial evidence that colour doesn't matter is the example of other similar animals with bright colours. A bright red blood python or a brazilian rainbow boa won't blend in, nor will a coral snake, yet these are all well established species. If my conclusion based on the above is correct then there should be more morphs and there aren't, right? Maybe not. Maybe the reason morphs are rare is not that these variations are a liability but because the genes themselves are rare not through natural selection (remember, the fossil record refutes Darwin's version of evolution) but because they are the result of genes mutating after the normal pattern was set and these mutations happen very rarely. Take albinism and piebaldism in humans for example. It has been a very long time since colour mattered for human survival and yet one rarely meets someone who is albino or pied because these genes are extremely rare in human populations. If anyone else has any thoughts on this or evidence for or against my thoughts, thank you in advance for your replies, I look forward to reading them.
-----
I eat human infants. They, like everything else, taste like chicken. What?

I would have to agree with you. You can just think about any co-dom. The gene cannot be passed on except as a visual and of course you would almost never see a super... hence recessives and how rarely a new visual recessive pops up. It is a real possibility that there are other recessive morphs that have not been seen yet.

2 cents

Ive heard of people finding YBs and Cinnys and who knows what from importing. I agree, Color is not a factor.( I am completly AGAINST importing!)

For most morphs, your theories about the color are sound. They still blend in to their surroundings, but to us the variation on a basic color is beautiful.

However, you are very wrong about white snakes/animals being less likely to be preyed upon. Ablinism and white prey animals are rarely found in the wild, because white is easy to see, even at night. A white animal in the wild is like a free meal to anything that catches a glimpse of it.

What we consider morphs provide no reproductive advantage for the species, which is why we don't find more of them. If a snake with the spider gene was able to lay more eggs or mate with more females, then there would be a good chance that eventually the spider gene would become more prevelant among ball pythons.
Spiders do grow faster, if I remember correctly? But, (don't anyone dare start a flame war over this) they also tend to have a least a bit of a head wobble at birth or as they grow. A head wobble could be a great disadvantage for the snake to survive in a place where that slight movement might be all it takes for a predator to see it.

Survival of the fittest, like Darwin proposed, isn't necessarily true - it's who can pass on the most of their genes to the next generation. Morphs just don't have enough of a reproductive advantage to be more prevelant.

(the college course on this is extremely interesting, I recommend it)

~jenny
-----
"The python has, and I fib no fibs,
318 pairs of ribs.
In stating this I place reliance
On a seance with one who died for science
This figure is sworn to and attested,
He counted them while being digested."
~Ogden Nash

jenny.thegreenes.org

"If you're happy and you know it,
Bomb Iraq!
If you cannot find Osama,
Bomb Iraq!
If the terrorists are frisky,
Pakistan is looking shifty,
North Korea is too risky,
Bomb Iraq!

What do you think of the similar rarity of albinism in humans? Of coarse most people are not attracted to albinos so that cuts down on reproductive edge but predation is not an issue. I am not trying to call you out on this but is your assertion that white (nocturnal) animals are easier prey based on proven fact or the standard assumption that this is the case? Again, not trying to start a war, just challenging possibly unfounded "wisdom". Remember, adult pieds have been found in the wild.
-----
I eat human infants. They, like everything else, taste like chicken. What?

I'm checking my textbook and wording a response so that its not using a bunch of textbook jargon. I'll post when I get off work later today.

~jenny
-----
"Polysyllabism in no way insures that what you're saying is actually worth being heard." - Blake (an e-friend of mine)

"I have never made but one prayer to god, a very short one: "O lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And he granted it." - Voltaire

Genetics are FAR more complex than the simple Mendelian genetics we use to explain dominant and recessibe traits in ball pythons. EVERYTHING is genetic. When someone says that a particular trait has proven "non=genetic" this is completely incorrect. It is just not explained by simple genetics. There is a reason at most universities you can choose from over 30 genetics courses. In addition to being genetic, every genetic trait (phenotypically visible or not) imparts some influence on selection. Natural (or un-natural) selection is irrefutable. Bright and highly visible colors are not always negatively selective. There are many many instances of plants, insects, and animals that have "naturally selected" for the bright and highly visible colors, patterns and behaviors of another animal that is either poisonous or don't taste good to predators )Coral snakes, scorpions, rattlesnakes, and Monarch butterflies are all mimicked). In these instances bright colors and patterns increase survivability and are positively selective.

>>Genetics are FAR more complex than the simple Mendelian genetics we use to explain dominant and recessibe traits in ball pythons. EVERYTHING is genetic. When someone says that a particular trait has proven "non=genetic" this is completely incorrect. It is just not explained by simple genetics. There is a reason at most universities you can choose from over 30 genetics courses. In addition to being genetic, every genetic trait (phenotypically visible or not) imparts some influence on selection. Natural (or un-natural) selection is irrefutable. Bright and highly visible colors are not always negatively selective. There are many many instances of plants, insects, and animals that have "naturally selected" for the bright and highly visible colors, patterns and behaviors of another animal that is either poisonous or don't taste good to predators )Coral snakes, scorpions, rattlesnakes, and Monarch butterflies are all mimicked). In these instances bright colors and patterns increase survivability and are positively selective.

Well said...,and i have always preferred the term "natural selection" over "evolution"...Survival of the fittest,or luckiest,ensures furthur propagation(All others are dead,and therefore cannot reproduce.)
-----
Charles Glaspie

Also, just because the human eye distiguishes colors and patterns a certain way, this doesnt mean animals, insects and reptiles see them the same as we do.

Who can say for sure what wavelengths and color spectrums various predatory animals see their prey in? Something that may stand out in in our eyesight may not be visible to certain animals, reptiles or insects, or visa-versa.

Like when you put something under a black light or the kid decoder cards that are red and you put them in front of the red pattern to see whats there...

~Alan

The cones and rods in mammalian predators work roughly the same way as those in humans thus, they see in black and white at night. Cats are a little different due to the reflective membranes in their eyes which allow them to see better at night but they still see black and white at night. Since most of the ball pythons predators are mammals, this is what I am going on. Also, I do not discount natural selection, only that colour is a major part of it for nocturnal animals.
-----
I eat human infants. They, like everything else, taste like chicken. What?

What good does it do a brazillian rainbow boa to be bright red?
-----
I eat human infants. They, like everything else, taste like chicken. What?

I must admit that with respect specifically to the rainbow boa I do not know what advantage bing bright red offers. The bright red color may not provide an advantage for escaping the eyes of mammalian predators, but maybe it provides some other advantage that outweighs the negatives of detection? Maybe the wavelengths in red color provide an advantage for thermoregulation? Maybe the red color, OR some other trait associated with the red color phenotype provides some advantage. For instance the red color genetic phenotype may be the result of a genetic complex that also provides improved metabolism or improved olfactory senses. The red color itself may (I am not sure it doesn't) or may not provide an advantage, but the expression of red color may also be linked to some other genetic condition which provides an advantage as is the case in multiple other species. Genetics, genetic advantage, and selection are much more complex to be explained in all cases in one dimension. Kind of like trying to solve a calculus problem with simple arithmetic. Ultimately you use simple arithmetic, but you have to understand calculus and all the variables in the equation.

your last post brings up a possibility that I had not thought of but supports my idea that colour might not be that important. That is your thought that the colour on the rainbow might be linked to something else. What is really interesting is that you specify metabolism because rainbows are known for being voracious feeders which is associated with higher metabolism. My main point in posting his though is to challenge intellectual laziness. It seems that a lot of theories have become so ingrained as to be unquestionable. On of these is the theory that animals have the colour they exhibit because of trial and error natural selection. It is a good theory in that for the most part observation shows that animals' colours blend in with their surroundings but it is only theory, there is no way to prove it (yet???). A flip side of this theory is the idea that morphs are rare because their colour is detrimental and not due to the original rarity of the mutated gene. The case of human morphs makes me think that this is incorrect. This is testable. If someone were so inclined and had financial backing, they could go out into the field, check all clutches in an area for morphs and over the next few years track how many reach adult hood. These numbers could be cross referenced with the percentage of normals that reach adulthood and bam, we now have initial findings on which to make arguments and do hundreds of more studies for verification. Now I don't plan to do this but it could be done. Honestly, I am very surprised that more people just reiterated the old ideas without entertaining what I have suggested. No one has even touched on why, despite all the genetic inferiorities that have come to light in the past century or so of mass survival among humans, albinism and piebaldism remain so rare. Not judging or insulting, just surprised.
-----
I eat human infants. They, like everything else, taste like chicken. What?