Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I think some people are missing the point here. I can't speak for Virgil, but my view on this was I thought it could have merit as an experiment to see if the trait was genetic. Period.

The results of this could tell us some things about husbandry if it's not genetic (ie we need to feed these things often when young) or about wild populations that may have this defect out there, possibly as a result of lack of genetic diversity.

I don't condone producing these animals and selling them on the market as dwarf indigos at all. In my point of view it would be worth while as an experiment to answer these questions only.

The dwarf thing has always seemed strange to me...especially since many of these animals have normal sized heads. In snakes, the skull grows slowly over time, no matter how fast the body grows. That's why you see pin-headed adult sized snakes that people have "pumped" So...it's possible the dwarfs were just stunted...the body stopped it's inter-programmed growth spurt after about 3 years, and went into the slow growth pattern of the adult. The head was always in that pattern, as with a normal snake, and therefore you have a normal sized head on a short, stubby snake.

Just one theory.

I don't see any reason why these animals would be "evolving" to be smaller, but who knows, I'm not in charge of all that! Snakes are are relatively new on the scene and could still be evolving rapidly. Look at all the morphs that pop up. You see that much more rarely in mammals, birds, etc. So, as stange as it sounds, I guess that can't be ruled out entirely.

I think nature sometimes throws crazy things out there to see what sticks. Whoever survives passes their genes along and wins.

I hope this doesn't make me seem cold...but I think this is bigger than the risking the lives of a few specimens, or possibly putting down a few that may end up runts. Man, I KNOW
that sounded cold.

Just my 2 cents...or more like a quarter I guess.

Dean etc all.....

About three years ago there was a vendor at a East Coast Reptile show that had a Dwarf Eastern Indigo. Friends of mine described it to be via phone from there in detail. It was about 3 feet in length, of which the majority of that was composed of the anal section of the snake and the head, with very little body in between. Additionally, this snake was laterally compressed and appeared to have its ribs "Splayed out along its sides though it showed good bodyweight. They asked them to purchase it, I assured them that I didnt.

I can easily see why people would be enamoured with breeding a smaller Indigo, if only for the sake of cage space and cleanup. I am not going to rail against it, I just prefer mine to be as big as possible. It is interesting to see if it is a genetically inheritied trait, reminds me of dwarfs horses. Like I said, my choice is big, my mind is to closed to accept the dwarf indigos.

Take care

Fred Albury

The thought of that . . . . . NO THANKS. I agree with Fred!!! And I DO hope it's not a gentic thing of the future! Some good points made by Dean though. BUT . . . BIGGER IS BETTER (My 03 hatchling is already over 3' - THANK GOD!!! If one wants a Dwarf Indigo, then get a Black milksnake . . . . .

My 1.5 cents,

ZEE

Well, maybe suggest the black king... even the black milk easily exceeds 5 feet.

yes, seems to me like survival of the fittest to me. some offspring arent cut out to be reproducing. lets face it, some have to become indigo, kingsnake, or owl food. its part of nature. indigos are large predators, and as such any malformed or underdeveloped offspring simply become a Ritz cracker for another animal. in nature.

however, i see no problem in keeping a dwarf indigo for novelty purposes, just dont breed it, as its condition may be genetic.

if i get an indigo, it better darn well get at least 6-7 feet, thats the appeal of these awesome snakes. like a wingless eagle or a lion the size of a hampster, it just aint the same.

I haven't been keeping up with the threads lately on this subject, however, here are my thoughts:

- with so little info on geographic locality of indigo populations, won't it be difficult to prove whether this is a naturally occuring population or a genetic defect?
- if this is a naturally occurring population, to my knowledge, we haven't seen or documented any of these "dwarf" races
- as Dean mentioned, this may be suitable for experimentation, however, my concern is that you will then be introducing a potential defective genetic component into the already genetically depleted pools that currently exist in captive couperi collections....not a good combination in my opinion.
- I sure hope that indigo breeding doesn't follow the pattern of every other herp species...that is, trying to finding something "different" to an already perfect species! Look at what we have done to corn snakes, burmese pythons, ball pythons, etc.

Oh well, what do I know.

Rob Carmichael, Curator
The Wildlife Discovery Center at Elawa Farm
1401 Middlefork Drive
Lake Forest, IL 60045
847-615-4388 office

You know what, Rob? I think it's inevitable. As we breed more and more of them and they become more easily available, some are going to fall into the hands of people that will do just that.

Don't get me wrong, breeding them in larger numbers is a good thing as long as we strive to keep our bloodlines as pure as possible and keep enough different lines to avoid inbreeding as much as possible. The more genetically "good" specimens we have in collections the better off we are. But there is always the bad to be taken with every good.

Somebody is eventually going to do it. They are going to offer some sort of hybrid or unusual morph, and there will be a market for it. That's when we are in for a REALLY difficult time. It will be hard to keep track of all of these hybrids, some will be sold as "pure", then there's a chance of inadvertently contaminating a clean line. I think the only way we'll be able to keep this from happening will be by using DNA. Then things will get more expensive, maybe prohibitively so.

Yup, this is a tricky one! Oh what a tangled web we weave. I see where each of you is comming from on this. And everyone's arguments make sense to me,...but I'm a newby here, so my two cents are probably only worth a half a ruble. Whatever happens, I hope it dosent get out of control. It could be that this thing is a direct result of the finite community of captive bred animals. Maybe the gene pool needs some fresh blood. Maybe a few wild male specimens could be bred with a few captive mammas, and then released. That is, of course, with the consent and supervision of the powers that be.
My half a ruble,
Tony.

Your 2 cents are worth the same as everyone else's 2 cents in here.

I can tell you now, though...the powers that be will never agree to anything like that. Not in a million years. The gene pool we have now is what we're going to have. We just need to manage it.

That's too bad. Now I am beginning to understand why this type of thing generates so much passion amongst those who love these animals. The health and survival of the captive gene pool seems to be precarious at best! Nothing is certain, though I beleive that their is enough cummulative brain power, and passion here, that if we can properly focus these two things, we might just pull it off. But we gotta get better organized. Wish I knew how!!!
Tony.

Yeah, the problem is that the "powers that be" hold all the cards. They do not have a very high opinion of private breeders as a rule. So, any attempt to try to persuade them to change any of their positions runs the risk of quickly becoming a confrontational encounter (or at least perceived as such) and the private sector ALWAYS loses those. That's why I keep saying that we need to find ways to work with them, not against them. If we can establish a level of trust, at least between some of the private sector and some of the "agency folks", we can start to make some headway. The one thing that we don't want to do is give them the impression that we want to start releasing a bunch of captive born stock into wild populations. There are some very good reasons that they (we) don't want that to happen, but it seems to be the first thing that people want to jump on. It seems like a good thing to do at first blush, but then if you really think about it, it could be the absolute worst thing we could do...even worse maybe than doing nothing at all. That's not to say that repatriation is impossible or out of the question...it isn't. It's just not nearly as simple as it sounds and done incorrectly could cause much more damage than most people could imagine.

So, there is a level of distrust that goes both ways. We have to break that barrier down, and the only way to do that is to do whatever we can to help and show the "powers" that we are sincere, dedicated to the species and in it for the long run. They need to know we aren't a bunch of yahoos that are going to be out there collecting wild animals and releasing captive born, and giving away locale information and that sort of thing. They are charged with managing a Threatened species that happens to have a relatively high black-market value. You can understand where they are coming from.

Absolutely 100%. I agree. Hey whatya know! lol

I think that if we were organized into some type of formal group, designed to police our own, and have some dgree of control over the captive gene pool,it would go a long way towards accomplishing just what you said.
Tony.