that wierd "morph"?

[engywook]

I disagree with your analogy. The gene that enabled redheads developed in a region with very little sun and obviously the "flaw" wasn't enough to prevent the spread of that gene.

Perhaps I could have chosen a better analogy...but I think you missed my point -- I wasn't claiming that being red-headed is a flaw. As far as redheadedness developing in a region with very little sun: the same selective pressures also led to a general lightening of hair/skin without the associated "problems" of redheadedness. However, as you say, obviously the cost of the redhead mutation (ie, the "flawed" part of it) was not sufficient to prevent its spread. My question, though: if you had just met the very first redhead, could you have made that call?

That's why I don't like the description of a trait/individual as "flawed". Apparently, the Derma is a healthy snake and labelling it as 'flawed' seems to be the result of the idea that snakes "should" be scaled. One also can't claim that scales are "best" for snakes simply because it seems as though most of them are scaled -- if the mutation for scalelessness occurs rarely and is recessive, it's not surprising that we don't see it often. If it's sufficiently rare, we might even expect that selection would take a very long time to act on it (either in a positive or negative direction).

As for a lack of scaleless reptiles in nature....in fact, quite a few reptiles have lost their scales; not only have they thrived, they've radiated onto every continent and most of the islands on the planet. We call them birds.

[SnakeySnakeSnake]

Are we overlooking the fact that almost no one would pay several 10's of thousands of dollars for a het unless it is proven? Do you really think these people shelling out big bucks for hets of "new unproven" morphs don't realize that these are in fact, new and unproven?

If I were a big snake breeder, and wanted in on the ground floor of the next big thing, it might be worth the risk to try to get my hands on anything and everything new. Do you think those people paying XX thousand dollars for "new" stuff in africa to be shipped over have any guarantee that it is genetic?

I think some people are getting hung up on the whole "but it isnt proven!" when the entire point is, they ARENT proven, and everyone knows it.... sure labeling an unproven snake a het is misleading to someone new, but it all comes down to education. If you dont do the background work to recognize that these are unproven morph hets, then you shouldnt be dropping big bucks on them anyway.

Unless there is another unambiguous way of labeling "unproven morph hets" without confusing them with % possible hets, etc, then I think it is perfectly acceptable to list them as het for derma, as that is what they are genetically unless they dont prove out. (and like Adam said, there is agood chance they will prove to be genetic)

[xdeus]

As for a lack of scaleless reptiles in nature....in fact, quite a few reptiles have lost their scales; not only have they thrived, they've radiated onto every continent and most of the islands on the planet. We call them birds.

That isn't the lack of scales, that's a scale mutation. Until someone finds a colony of scaleless snakes that are thriving in any environment, I will consider them as flawed individuals. The same goes for a two headed snake or one born without eyes. It's not a simple color mutation that changes the appearance, but rather a phyisical difference that could prevent the animal from having the proper protection or hindering its mobility. Honestly, I don't really care about the Derma. I see it like any other mutant that people propagate such as a hairless dog or even the modern turkey that is physically unable to mate.

Oh, and I was thinking a little more about what Adam had said about evolution not being finished yet. In a sense, every organism on this planet is "finished" evolving for their particular environment, and being that environments are constantly changing, no animal is trully finished evolving as well. Some can get by with very little change for millions of years like the crocodile or shark, and others need to change very rapidly in order at adapt. As far as scales on a reptile, obviously they have their purpose seeing how thousands of reptile species have kept them for millions of years and every reptile still has them. Until the particular environment changes so much that the animal no longer needs scales or they become a liability, I can't see scales being eliminated until that organism is no longer considered a reptile.

Unless there is another unambiguous way of labeling "unproven morph hets" without confusing them with % possible hets, etc, then I think it is perfectly acceptable to list them as het for derma, as that is what they are genetically unless they dont prove out.

I disagree. That's not what they are genetically UNTIL it is proven that it's genetic. Why is it then that so many people jump on people that claim they have a new morph? The standard response I hear is "Prove it out, until you do it's just a normal". Why is it that the Derma gets preferential treatment? If I found an eyeless snake or a two-headed snake, would people be okay with me selling the sibs as Hets? I don't think enough is known about scaleless snakes and their genetics to definitely say if it is genetic or not.

[erinisnice]

If the scaleless snake was in the wild, what would protect its belly from rocks, sticks, etc?
It looks like it could be injured much more easily than a scaled snake.

[SnakeySnakeSnake]

I disagree. That's not what they are genetically UNTIL it is proven that it's genetic.

I think everyone knows that, that is the point... everyone knows it isn't proven, I think this spirals back to the whole, how explicitly defined does everything have to get to prevent misunderstandings.

Why is it then that so many people jump on people that claim they have a new morph? The standard response I hear is "Prove it out, until you do it's just a normal".

I think people are still saying "prove it out" about the derma, but the derma is so radically different, and this condition has proven genetic before (see Adam's comment, im basing it off of this), so they are given the benefit of the doubt. Way more would be shocked to find it ISNT genetic, than would be shocked to find that it IS genetic.

Why is it that the Derma gets preferential treatment?

See above

If I found an eyeless snake or a two-headed snake, would people be okay with me selling the sibs as Hets?

If eyelessness or two-headedness had been proven to be genetic in other animals, then yes people might be ok with it, assuming it didnt affect their health (and even if it did some would still be ok with it)

I don't think enough is known about scaleless snakes and their genetics to definitely say if it is genetic or not.

I think everyone agrees that we do not know 100% right now... we are talking about probabilities not sureties. If the options are, list het dermas as "100% het for Derma if derma is in fact genetic if its not then its not a het at all" or "100% het for Derma", I will take the latter. I know enough about the situation to realize that it isn't proven yet....

NOW I will take your side if someone TRIES to prove out dermas, over and over, and it never works, and someone CONTINUES to try to sell them as hets, then that would definitely be misleading...

[xdeus]

If the options are, list het dermas as "100% het for Derma if derma is in fact genetic if its not then its not a het at all" or "100% het for Derma", I will take the latter.

Why do those have to be the only two options? What about "Derma Sibs"?

[SnakeySnakeSnake]

Why do those have to be the only two options? What about "Derma Sibs"?

That seems like it would be inaccurate as well.

I've heard of "Pastel sibs" which are obviously not pastels, and contain no genetic information for Pastel

"Derma Sibs" would imply to me, that Derma is a co-dom or dom trait, and that these sibs are genetically identical to a normal.

Ive never heard of "Albino Sibs" Because it being a recessive trait means there is a chance that they are hets. Do people even refer to recessive morphs sibs in such a manner?

I'm assuming Derma is supposed to be recessive if he is trying to sell possible hets?

[xdeus]

I'm assuming Derma is supposed to be recessive if he is trying to sell possible hets?

The point is that the genetics are completely unknown at this time so the only accurate description would be Derma Sibs. It might be het for Derma and it might not; there is no way of knowing until it is proven. You said that it would imply that it was a normal of a co-dom or dom trait, but doesn't het imply that it is in known to be genetically recessive?

[SnakeySnakeSnake]

The point is that the genetics are completely unknown at this time so the only accurate description would be Derma Sibs. It might be het for Derma and it might not; there is no way of knowing until it is proven. You said that it would imply that it was a normal of a co-dom or dom trait, but doesn't het imply that it is in known to be genetically recessive?

I have 2 Het for Super Pastels upstairs

[engywook]

The point is that the genetics are completely unknown at this time so the only accurate description would be Derma Sibs. It might be het for Derma and it might not; there is no way of knowing until it is proven.

I agree completely. Calling them "Derma Sibs" is fine; "possible Derma hets" would also be acceptable, though less accurate. To actually label them with a specific chance of being a het, though, is somewhere between misleading and dishonest. True, anyone planning on paying $30,000 for a snake should actually have enough background to know what they're getting anyway, but it's still bad practice to mislabel like that.

Oh, and I was thinking a little more about what Adam had said about evolution not being finished yet. In a sense, every organism on this planet is "finished" evolving for their particular environment, and being that environments are constantly changing, no animal is trully finished evolving as well.

Well put. We actually have a name for that: the "Red Queen hypothesis". The name comes from the Red Queen in Through the Looking Glass, who says to Alice "it takes all the running you can do to stay in the same place." The basic idea is that a species doesn't actually get any better at surviving over time, similar to an arms race or aiming for a moving target -- there's activity and things change, but you never really 'get anywhere'. It's actually a bit broader than that and has more implications (offering, for example, a possible explanation of the advantage (and therefore origin) of sex), but that's not particularly relevant to this discussion. An excellent (and very readable) book on the subject is The Red Queen, by Matt Ridley. (If you don't want to invest the time & money involved in reading a book, Wikipedia also has an article on the Red Queen.)

Cheers.