Reptile & Amphibian Forums

The first thing you need to do is difine ethics and compare that to opinion. If after that, you wish to discuss ethics, then have at it.

The answer to that question is, if you do not think its right, then ethicially, you should not do it. If you think its right or have no other choice, then do it. Hey thats simple.

The real question is, why and why not. For most here that is beyond their ability to understand. Other then to create an arguement. Which has been going on forever.

If you are really concerned, then lets think about it. First, reptiles live in restricted populations, they are enclosed by either or both, physical or behavioral barriers. This shows up in having local color morphs of the same species. Something reptiles are noted for. Hence all the colors of corns, kings, boas, lizards etc. There are natural color morphs because of inbreeding. IF they out bred, they would tend to be uniform in color. With monitors, they are highly population oriented.

I can assume that thru decades or centuries of time, even with these animals outbreeding may occur, but remember we are assuming that.

Recently scientists are classifying species thru genetics, and now the understanding of this is just begining. Remember, this is very confusing to these scientists. Which leads me to question, how many of you are so learned at this.

To understand their genetics again is a huge question. Most of the comments I have read here are very naive. Its more complicated that you think and at the same time much more simple.

Genes are a "history book" of that animal, its not a simple set of building blocks. In populations, these are a set of successful steps that allowed that animals or group to continue to exsist. Like an onion, there are layers upon layers of genes that were expressed at one time. They're successful genes, not unsuccessful genes. This is something to really think about. Unsuccessful traits were simply erased by nature. Remember, there are no vets, doctors or halfway houses that will allow the incapable to survive. They simply die.

Think of it like this, if there was a delerious gene, it would have surfaced, then it would disappear because its unfit. If these animals are restricted in area, then inbreeding has to occur. Examples of this are islands. Also, many of you go herping, when you do, you say you are going over there to find this or that. You know where some kingsnakes, cornsnakes, spotted turtles, whatever, are, so you go there. Those are restricted areas. If they were designed to out breed, you would not have to go to a certain spot, you would be able to find them all over and they would tend to look alike. We would not have to use adjectives to help others understand what they looked like. These traits are Homozygous genes. There are no deleroius heterozygous genes. Hetero genes occur thru outbreeding. Try to understand that. Outbreeding is most likely how delerious genes are incurred. Then inbreeding will express these genes. So maybe we should question the ethics of outbreeding?

In captivity, many times we have no choices, for instance, I was the genesis of many species of reptiles. But lets pick a couple. I bred Kimberlys and Red Acanthurus. We had a pair and a trio. If I understand you correctly, you would have me not breed them after the first breedings? Because every breeding after that would be inbreeding. Ethically I could only breed the first pair and trio. Then I should have killed and preserved the rest. As they can only be inbred. I will be right back, i need to go kill of a bunch of baby lacies and pop some eggs. As I have all the lacies I need or want. Any more would surely have to be inbred.

That would have to happen with all rare monitors or reptiles. The reason is, they are rare.

In reality, genetic bottlenecking is a mathematical certainty. But there are many problems with that, first of all, animals are a living changing enity, not math. And second, the amount of time its takes is totally unknown. It may take hundreds of millions of years or one year.

Back to reality, in our cases, most of the people are being very hypocritical, as most have some morphs of other reptiles that are products of inbreeding, or pets like rabbits, mice, dogs, birds, cats, horses, etc, etc, that are products of inbreeding. Yet for some reason, they are against monitors being inbred.

I do not have a good answer for that. Only those people are not about ethics, are they? But more about opinion, which we are all allowed to have.

For my own experience, I have been inbreeding and outbreeding reptiles of many types for around four decades and have not seen any health problems doing so. I will say, I have experienced lots of problems with poor husbandry. I may be a bit jaded, but as an old person(compared to most of you) I think in most cases, genetics was a cover for poor husbandry. Certainly it could not the the fault of the keepers, could it? I mean they were so good at keeping monitors that all species have been bred for many years(bad joke) I really think the people who want to blame genetics for husbandry problems, should get into model trains or something else thats not living.

For me, I do not understand were there could be ethics, when then is little understanding of what these animals do in the first place. I do understand, there are lots of opinions.

For me, there are many more unethicial things, like taking mass amounts of monitors from nature, only to simply allow them to die.

People keeping monitors in such conditions that the monitors are physically unable to grow or reproduce.

People who ask how to set up their rare(you name the species) monitor. Because its their first monitor.

Anyone asking about caresheets for a species of monitor(my personal pet pieve)

Those are only some of my ethics, or is that my opinions. Ok, it may be opinions, but then, we are allowed to have them, aren't we. F

ps. sorry for any misspelling.

"Recently scientists are classifying species thru genetics"

About time.

While that sounds great, its not so simple. Or so easy.

You should consider an animal is made up of thousands of genes. Some genes are strong, that is, they do not change quickly, like for critical parts. These evolve very slowly. There are genes that evolve very quickly, like for pattern and color, these are of no use. There are also lots of genes that migrate neither slowly or quickly. The scientist try to find one of these, the problem is, its not uniform.

Like with other tools, there is much debate on the importance of which gene(s) to use.

Also, I think using genes will change the entire landscape of how we view species. For instance, instead of 60 some odd species, there may be several hundred or more. F

To my knowledge specific genes are not what determine a species. Chromozomes are. Genes simple determine the traits of an individual.

Chromozone count and arrangement have been used in determining different species of populations of animals that look identicle. One example is the dic dic (sp?). It was once thought that all dic dics were the same, but zoos (SDZ and Santa Ana Zoo specificly) were unable to reproduce them. Upon examining cells during mitosis, it was determined that the chromozome counts were different, which led to the discovery that they were not dealing with one species, but two that looked the same!

I'm not a biologist, but my current understnading of using genetics to determine species is by examining the number and arrangement of chromozonmes, while the alleles (genes) are a matter of individual genetic makeup.

I could certainly be mistaken, but this what I'm getting into in my biology class right now, and this was one example that was given to me concerning species identification, and it's hardly cutting edge science.

Taking a closer look at monitor DNA will take quite a while indeed (how long did it take to map out the human genome?). But chromozome counts are fairly easy to do under a microscope, and they will certianly put the state of things in better shape than they are currently, with people still counting scales (I never understood what the Hell that had to do with anything!).

Chromosomes don't always differ in number and shape between species, especially between closely related species. For example, horses and donkeys are in the same genus, yet have a different number of chromosomes (which is why mules can't breed - the chromosomes don't match up during the production of sex cells, or meiosis). Varanids, from what I gather, share chromosome number and, in closely related species, chromosome shape. That's why all of the gouldii group can interbreed so freely in captivity.

Comparing genes between species doesn't require gene mapping, for all you are looking at is overall trends of similarity rather than comparing individual genes one at a time. Many of the techniques for doing this have been around for ages, but simply haven't been applied to all of the known monitors, yet.

Thank you DK for clearing that up.

This is my opinion based on some experience in breeding other animals. Inbreeding should not be attempted by amateurs. Any successful line breeder (Kevin Dune @ Dragon's Den Herp) will outcross every so often and maintain records. He has great bearded dragons, one of the best in the business and he lines breed.

However, I personally feel that if someone has to ask the question than they should not attempt such a thing. Given the small genepool there is in the US in regards to some herps, genetic diversity should be attempted. Many different breeds of dogs have characteristic illnesses such as hip dysplasia, lutino cockateils have a bald spot, mistakes have been made in the past, why not learn from them?

Basically, what I think is that it's not a black and white matter. It is dependent on the species of animal one's trying to breed, their natural range, and how much knowledge on genetics the breeder has. This is strictly my opinion, but if an animal is found only in a small area than they are more "resistant" to the negative effects of inbreeding and that is due to the fact that all the individuals with undiserable traits dying out leaving only the strongest, most robust animals.

Keeping in mind that not many breeders cull, I strive for genetic diversity.

that I come on kingsnake asking for advice since there isn't much published on specific species of monitors. I also know that wrong informatin is given quite frequently on both published books and care sheets. I feel like I'm doing the right thing when asking specifically where to look for information or clarification. What I was really surprised with the monitor board was that when I asked about ackies, not a single person said do more research, but gave me advice on how to proceed.. I'm not saying it's good or bad, but just different and good for me in this case.

One very good book on understanding monitors is King and Greens Monitor book, the 2 best on monitor husbandry period are Daniel Bennetts Savannah monitor book, and a close second is Rob Fausts Nile book. Bennetts book is a great one to read at least once if not to reference once evry now and then because it is questions and answers.

I know Kevin, in fact, I just talked to him. Very good fella and reptile breeder.

I do have to ask you this. When he outbreeds those beardeds, what does he outbreed them to? Wildcaught beardeds? I don't think so. As far a I know, and I do know a little. Most likely all of these beardeds derived from a handfull of individuals, that came in the country in the early to mid-eigthies. There may have been one or two new bloodlines(a handful of individuals) brought in since then. But I am fairly sure that the entire bearded bloodline to inbreed to dozens upon dozens of generations.

All these odd colormorphs came from a very few individuals a very long time ago, please ask Kevin and see what he says not what you think. Show him my post and see what he says. F

I absolutely agree that most likely they're distantly related. From what I understand, there's a very very small gene pool of bearded dragons. For that reason, I don't buy sandfire bearded dragons, based on my experience, they are colorful, but much smaller than other bearded dragons. The majority of dragons sold seems to be from Sandfire Dragon Ranch and simply put, I have to female crosses, and would not buy anymore.

There is one breeder in particular that received a huge shipment of F1 babies from Germany from several different bloodlines to help diversify the genepool because it is a problem that is recognized.

I see, but again, you seem to be falling into a giant trap. After one breeding, those german beardeds are now inbred. Also, they have come in from germany for a very long time. And most of the animals there, are the same as the animals here.

Also, if other new animals are the same type, found in the same area, they are also of the same general bloodling. If you use animals of a different genetic makeup, that my friend is called a cross.

Aside from all that. I was at Bobs house, when he was in the first few years of breeding dragons. He had lots of health issues with these non inbred individuals. In my view, it was not until they individuals that fit captivity surfaced that beardeds became, easy. What that means is, all of these types of reptiles throw a range of gene possibilities, they do so in order to insure that some of each generation will survive in a changing enviornment. In nature, whole clutches are not meant to survive. Only idividuals that fit. This is also practiced in captivity. We select the beardeds that prosper of crickets and mealworms, not the ones that eat the prevailing diet available to them each natural season. Please try and understand that.

About bloodlines, I hatched the first albino Calkings, within ten years, that bloodling spread around the world, from europe to japan, to africa, even to australia. Now its been almost thirty years of one bloodline. And its strong and healthy. This is true with beardeds as well. You see, even if you quote unquote, outbreed, but then select the same color morphs, you in reality did not outbreed if you keep selecting for the same gene expression. Sorry just things to think about.

Its still my opinion that 99% or more of all captive problems are not genetics, but instead poor husbandry. Its so darn easy to blame other things, u know. F

Well, I don't know the details, but the bearded dragons were brought in specifically to cross with existing stock, not each other. And, as I've stated, they're first generation stock from germany, meaning their parents were wild caughts from Australia sent over to Germany for research and educational institutions.

I agree that it is a trap. The way I see is that it's delaying the inevitable. I still believe that all animals will benefit from genetic diversity.

Again, I stress that I am not saying it is right or wrong, just that linebreeding should be attempted by individuals who know what they're doing and not someone who's too cheap to buy a distantly related animal to reduce the risk of undiserable recessive traits coming forward or someone who's hoping to produce the first albino babies of the species.

I also must say that I do not advocate mixing captive bred and wild caught animals. If one's looking to add diversity to their stock, they should use a wild caught pair and use F1 or F2 babies to add to their stock. After many generations of captive breeding, animals are no longer suitable for the wild and they do not have the resistance to certain diseases and parasites that wild caught individuals are carriers of.

I am going off topic here, but I keep and breed seahorses and because of CITES relisting seahorses as endangered, many hobbyists have tried to add wild caught seahorses to their collection with disastrous results. Even after a quarantine of 6 months to a year, the captive bred seahorses simple do not have the means to cope with certain illnesses that are commmon to seahorses in the wild, especially in a closed system.

Basically, all I'm saying is that breeding should be done by those who know what they are doing and not just out to make a quick buck. I personally have a pregnant pair of wild caught prehensile tailed skinks and all my seahorses are captive bred. I am slowly getting into breeding bearded dragons and there are lines where adults are only 12 inches and lines where adults are over 24 inches. I personally believe that's a result of linebreeding. When breeding, it should be for the overall quality of an animal, not just for color, not just for size, but all aspects.

Even if the stock from Europe is unrelated. What does that mean to the large number of People who are breeding stock that originated from Sandfire dragon ranch. Surely, few of these numbers have recieved these new genes. With that in mind, how many are having problems? 5% 10% 20 percent? The reason I ask is this, If it was a genetic problem, there would be a direct nunber affected. A certain percentage of every years hatch would show this expressed flaw. Has there been such a flaw?

On the other hand, I do see problems with dragons that are produced by breeders that make large numbers of offspring. You see, it goes back to husbandry, in those situations they have to house the babies in pans in large numbers. On some of my visits I saw that they had to remove dead babies every mourning. This is impossible to avoid in such situations. That means the remaining offspring are in various states of health, and unless you pick the strongest ones, you do not know what you get. Yes, this is a problem, but its not genetic.

Another question, has a lab ever verified that there was a genetic problem or was it merely assumed? Thanks F

I think we're just comparing apples to oranges so I'm just going to end my side of the debate.

However, I must add this. I agree that husbandry is a big part of success. Alot of dragons are underfed, alot are overfed. I also think that dragons that are too large should not be bred. But also think that dragons that are too small should not be bred either. Alot of babies are kept way too crowded and in very small enclosures. The statement I made was a general observation. Whenever an adult sandfire is sold or even the babies and I e-mail regarding the size of the adult, they're about 15 inches and 300 grams. One of my 5 month old bearded dragon is 15 inches.

lutino cockateils and hip dysplasia in certain breeds of dogs. These are truly defects and not just an observation. Another species that I have experience with is chinchillas. I have a trio of chinchilla and there is a huge emphasis on lineage. The small genepool chinchilla breeders have been working with has caused them to be very careful with their stock. Due to inbreeding, both fur chewing and a teeth condition (I can't remember it at the moment, but it does become fatal) are considered genetic defects.

yes your right, we are talking apples to oranges, you are talking about birds and mammals that have been inbred for, oh so many, generations.

This conversation is about monitors, then you stretched it to bearded dragons.

If we are talking about monitors, and that is what the question was about, then it has not surfaced or been seen with these. Also, as far as I know, not with beardeds either.

About the size and such you mentioned, I can have large monitors attain sexual maturity and produce very successfully at from 8 months to 18 months of age, yet others take many years. This is with the same bloodlines, its about husbandry. Thanks F

A first generation BT/WT cross, he was born without inner front toes and a section of compacted vertebrae. This animal is "Shadow" and he was small when I got him (from Rob Faust) at over 2 years old (22inches and 2.2 lbs). Now less than a year later hes over 3ft and 6 lbs. The genetic defects didnt slow him down after I got him yet he had a problem before, the only explanation might be husbandry. I also have a second generation BT/WT cross a female (the same father bred with his daughter), yet shes a healthy beast at 6ft and 24.5 lbs and shes only 22 months old (Sobek). I guess husbandry again proves to be the culprit. So again I see no reason to worry about the limited gene pool, after all komodo dragons have been inbred for millions of years on a few isolated islands, yet every attempt at captive breeding the zoos go out of their way to look for another animal from another zoo to keep the gene pool larger yet they are all closely related anyways. I guess it proves that the monitors are smarter than the people who take care of them or breed them at least when it comes to whats good for them or what they need. Im in no way perfect but my animals have taught me alot about them. I also have a sandfire cross beadie that is about 15 inches at 5 months old, yet his brothers and sisters are either dead or 4-6 inches long, the difference is my fiancee and I kept him when I got the 10 of them at 2 weeks old and sold the others, and yes I still have access to the last few standing at their current owners. Another example of husbandry, because when I sold the others they were all the same size and just as aggressive (infact I had to mark my fiancees to tell some of them apart. I guess if it were a genetic problem with all of these reptiles they should be extinct by now.

You cannot blame genetics on the toes and such. Not if that was the only individual that had that. It most likely is incubation. Now if all the offspring for several clutches had that, then yes, genetics would be suspected. F

And make half of 2 front toes disappear? The vertebrae are compacted on one side which causes a bend to the left.

It's my understanding that disruptions in proper incubation conditions will disrupt the development of whatever happens to be growing that day. I personally don't see how a genetic mutation would specify two toes to be missing, but that's possible too.
At any rate there are many possibilites for reasons why a certain animal has certain deformities, of which genetic mutations or incubation problems are just a few. Nutritional defeciencies, exposure to chemicals, ect. ect....
-----
Peter: It's OK, I'll handle it. I read a book about something like this.
Brian: Are you sure it was a book? Are you sure it wasn't NOTHING?

"... meaning their parents were wild caughts from Australia sent over to Germany for research and educational institutions."

haha

I am sorry creeps, but I wonder if chromosones are found in genes???? to make it simple, I use the term genetics. I do not believe any more then that will be of any help, I know its not for me, as I do not need to know or understand how that works. As Dr. Ube Krebs once told me. Species, subspecies, its only for the moment and is of no matter. F

"I am sorry creeps, but I wonder if chromosones are found in genes????"

Close. Genes are found in chromozomes.

Nevertheless, it seems that you were correct and things are more difficult that I was thinking.

np
-----
----------
"Feed um then heat um"
"The less you breed the more you read"

Better not tell 'em about them funny ass kingsnakes you was cookin' up back in the 70's.

Guy