# Inbreeding?



## Kathryn_ (Aug 26, 2008)

I notice quite regularly people advertising discounts on pairs of animals from the same season. In the thread on SR's pairs of albino olives I asked a question that seems to have been lost in the thread without getting answered, which was, are these animals siblings, or are SR fortunate enough to have two sets of het or homo albino animals to breed from? If they are siblings, are they being offered on the understanding that people are going to attempt to breed them?* Would* people breed them? Do those people understand the potential consequences? 

My concern with a lot of "morphs" is that as they become more desirable and more available, people will become more and more inclined to inbreed sibling or cousin animals for the obviously quite valueable offspring, which makes the chance of recessive health problems cropping up exponentially more likely the longer it goes on. What are other people's thoughts on this?

I should point out that I'm not criticising SR in any way, they're just the most recent example I've seen here of pairs of animals being offered that are assumedly from the same clutch.


----------



## Rocky (Aug 26, 2008)

If i was in possession of two very valuable/rare reptiles, Yes i believe i would inbreed them.


----------



## disasterpiece7.0 (Aug 26, 2008)

From everything I've researched and all the reputable and highly experienced breeders I've spoken to, reptiles can be safely inbred directly to siblings or parents for up to 4 generations. After 4 generations new blood has to be brought into the mix. 

I don't have a problem with it. Inbreeding is the best way to strengthen a specific trait and once this is is strengthened it can be mixed into another line with a similar trait.


----------



## snakecharma (Aug 26, 2008)

Well as far as i know SXR dont have albino olives for sale they may have them but have not made it know 

i think you have them mixed with snake ranch maybe


----------



## andyscott (Aug 26, 2008)

As far as I know, all albino pythons have come from the one animal, they have been inbred a few times already. So even if you get a pair from seperate clutches, all the breeding pairs of today were from the same clutch 3 or more years ago.


----------



## Kathryn_ (Aug 26, 2008)

DP: Four generations?!?! As in, the forth generation would be siblings and great-grandchildren of the first pair, or that the forth generation would be second-cousins? The latter is risky, the former is positively irresponsible. And are you saying that inbreeding reptiles is considered to be less risky than other animals? On what basis?


----------



## wil (Aug 26, 2008)

they have to do it in the wild


----------



## caustichumor (Aug 26, 2008)

How many original stock animals of RSP where there again? 5 maybe 6? Roughies would have the shallowest genepool of any australian captive pythons, at least albino animals can be bred outside of direct blood relatives....


----------



## cement (Aug 26, 2008)

There is people who have bred more than 4 gen with no problem.
Though I have heard of a bit of a funny thing going on with some jungles.


----------



## andyscott (Aug 26, 2008)

Kathryn_ said:


> DP: Four generations?!?! As in, the forth generation would be siblings and great-grandchildren of the first pair, or that the forth generation would be second-cousins? The latter is risky, the former is positively irresponsible. And are you saying that inbreeding reptiles is considered to be less risky than other animals? On what basis?


 Even in the wild pythons inbreed.
From a hatchling to an adult, a python dosnt travel all that far.
So more often than not they inbreed in the wild.
Thats why there are local pacific animals out there, they are inbred in the wild.


----------



## Carpetcleaner (Aug 26, 2008)

:shock::shock::shock::shock:
You learn something new every day


----------



## slacker (Aug 26, 2008)

Kathryn_ said:


> DP: Four generations?!?! As in, the forth generation would be siblings and great-grandchildren of the first pair, or that the forth generation would be second-cousins? The latter is risky, the former is positively irresponsible. And are you saying that inbreeding reptiles is considered to be less risky than other animals? On what basis?



On what basis do you declare inbreeding of _reptiles_ to be "risky" or "positively irresponsible"?


----------



## Kathryn_ (Aug 26, 2008)

Andy: you're right, a certain amount of inbreeding does occur in the wild, geneticists have all manner of clever formulae for working out how often it happens, and the affect it has on a population. As some bright person here said, snakes get run over in the wild, doesn't make it a good idea to drive through your herp room. 

Cement, aspidites: I'm not saying they *will* have problems, just that it's a serious risk. Other traits, including recessive disease alleles, are passed in exactly the same way recessive colour is. Two het individuals will produce one in four affected offspring.The chances of accidentally breeding from two hets increase the more you inbreed. Given the size of snake clutches, the number of sick snakes you might suddenly end up with after four gens is very worring. There's simply no way of knowing the possible types or severity of genetic disease in reptiles until it occurs in some unfortunate animal/s. The fact is, any animal or any species or phylum could harbour a very serious deleterious recessive allele, and we just wouldn't know until it popped up. Inreeding siblings is one way to find out much more quickly than is desirable.


----------



## disasterpiece7.0 (Aug 26, 2008)

Kathryn_ said:


> And are you saying that inbreeding reptiles is considered to be less risky than other animals? On what basis?



Genetics. Reptiles are not mammals. They're very different animals to you and I. 

Might I ask where you're getting your info on diseases? And what these might be?


----------



## gman78 (Aug 26, 2008)

They all end up coming from the one alibino olive don't they?
They darwin's all come from Blondie


----------



## Kathryn_ (Aug 26, 2008)

I study genetics at uni. What makes you think that reptiles are any different to mammals in the transmission of genetic disease? The diseases themselves will be different (though I would imagine many of them could be similar in all vertebrates as they have the same organ systems), and as I said above, there's no way of knowing what they are until they show up. I can't find any studies of genetic disease in reptiles, assumedly because unlike dogs, cats, goldfish and humans, they haven't been observed inbreeding for long enough for anyone to do good research on it.


----------



## Auzlizardking (Aug 26, 2008)

Quote: boa 


Some of the bigger very well respected breeders in the States have shown 6 or 7 generations have no obvious effects on young. The same rules don't seem to apply to reptiles as they do to mammals.


----------



## Auzlizardking (Aug 26, 2008)

http://www.aussiepythons.com/forum/general-herps/inbreeding-21130


----------



## cement (Aug 26, 2008)

Hi Katherin,
what sort of disease is likely to turn up in snakes from inbreeding?
7 gen is possibly 21 years or more, so its a big research.
Not having a go, just genuinly interested.


----------



## Kathryn_ (Aug 26, 2008)

Auslizardking: As I've said, genetic disease turning up due to inbreeding is not by any means a certainty, it's a risk. It's possible those breeders were just fortunate in that they began with health animals that weren't carrying any significant disease alleles. It's illogical to suppose that because it seems to have been done without perceivable ill effect so far, it's not possible that serious genetic disease in reptiles might occur. And how would you tell for certain anyway? The ill animals might never hatch, or simply appear to be "bad feeders" or runts" when in fact they're diseased.

Cement: as I've said, I don't know. Humans, who are of course the most studied, suffer all sorts of genetic diseases. Some of the most extreme are trisomys like Down's Syndrome, which is caused by an extra copy of a chromosome. It's entirely possible for a disease to occur in reptiles, for the same reason. Most humans with trisomys spontaneously abort, and Down's Syndrome is the only trisomy where people can survive to adulthood. There are also very serious diseases that occur due to tiny mutations in a single gene, called base-pair substitutions, insertions or deletions. These include Tay-Sachs disease and Sickle-cell anemia. These particular diseases themselves are unlikely in snakes, but the type of genetic errors that cause them can occur in almost any animal. All animals carry thousands of mutations, most of which don't matter at all, but every so often a really nasty one crops up.


----------



## gman78 (Aug 26, 2008)

All US research points to no problems.
Very different to mammals


----------



## hornet (Aug 26, 2008)

disasterpiece7.0 said:


> From everything I've researched and all the reputable and highly experienced breeders I've spoken to, reptiles can be safely inbred directly to siblings or parents for up to 4 generations. After 4 generations new blood has to be brought into the mix.
> 
> I don't have a problem with it. Inbreeding is the best way to strengthen a specific trait and once this is is strengthened it can be mixed into another line with a similar trait.



safely inbred to 4 generations? I dont know where you got your info from  i think i have heard 9gen inbred and no probs. The reason is reptiles are an ancient group of animals and therefore have much more stable genetic makeup and are less likley to have problems related to inbreeding than mammals


----------



## andyscott (Aug 26, 2008)

Well in that case, havnt they already been inbred 4 times?
Someone got lucky and got an albino Olive in their clutch.
That animal was then bred with standard animals.
Those hatchlings were inbred to see which ones had the het genes,
Then those hatchlings were inbred again.
Til now where Albino to Albino Olives are being inbred to get 100% Albino clutches.

The same goes for the Albino Darwins.

I dont think anyone will introduce a new bloodlines.
If someone has an albino or a het, they wont breed it with anything without the genes, as they wont get anything but possable hets and its back to the drawing board.
So IMO these animals will be inbred for years to come.


----------



## disasterpiece7.0 (Aug 26, 2008)

Kathryn_ said:


> I study genetics at uni. What makes you think that reptiles are any different to mammals in the transmission of genetic disease? The diseases themselves will be different (though I would imagine many of them could be similar in all vertebrates as they have the same organ systems), and as I said above, there's no way of knowing what they are until they show up. I can't find any studies of genetic disease in reptiles, assumedly because unlike dogs, cats, goldfish and humans, they haven't been observed inbreeding for long enough for anyone to do good research on it.



Fair call. I'm certainly not disagreeing with you that there probably are genetic diseases in reptiles, nor that inbreeding may cause them to affect more animals then if each generation was unrelated. However, in the experience of many breeders that use inbreeding (as stated above, in the US up to 6 or 7 gens) there has been no ill effects. 

This could be interpreted in many ways. But from my personal point of view, there seems to be some major differences between the affects of inbreeding on reptiles then on mammals. 

As for diseases, to my knowledge there doesn't seem to be any obvious ones that are made any worse by inbreeding. Certainly if I'm wrong here me please correct me. I think the lack of knowledge has more to do with the lack of diseases rather then a lack of research. Many breeders use inbreeding and I'm sure that if problems occurred they would inform the rest of the herping world to these problems and it would be investigated further. 

I probably won't take inbreeding to a fourth generation. There is certainly enough separate lines and localities for specific snakes that I'll be breeding in the next few years, so I'm not too concerned.


----------



## disasterpiece7.0 (Aug 26, 2008)

hornet said:


> safely inbred to 4 generations? I dont know where you got your info from  i think i have heard 9gen inbred and no probs.



Then technically I'm not wrong... I didn't say you couldn't do more. This is just info I've collected from experienced breeders that I know and seemingly reliable information found on the net, rather then what I heard on a forum. I'm not saying a forum isn't a great source of information, just there is alot of people throwing round information that may not be 100% accurate on internet forums.


----------



## junglepython2 (Aug 26, 2008)

If the founding stock is healthy I can't see a problem with inbreeding it has been done for many many generations with no real problems. 

Plus what's the big problem of recessive alleles coming out?? If they are detrimental the individual dies and the incidence in the population decreases. Plus by inbreeding you have much more chance of producing advantageous recessive mutations (at least for us) like albinism.


----------



## Jungle_Freak (Aug 26, 2008)

Kathryn 
Just buy yourself reptile genetics books 
theres been plenty of work done on reptile genetics 
cheers
Roger


----------



## TWENTY B (Aug 26, 2008)

at least 7 gen's of brother sister pairing has already been done with no known ill effect. 
I like many others will eventually be pairing the same. But i also plan on adding a fresh flood line to it in the future.


----------



## Ramsayi (Aug 26, 2008)

andyscott said:


> Well in that case, havnt they already been inbred 4 times?
> Someone got lucky and got an albino Olive in their clutch.
> That animal was then bred with standard animals.
> Those hatchlings were inbred to see which ones had the het genes,
> ...



Not too sure about that.I used an albino male darwin over unrelated females to produce hets in 2006.
As far as inbreeding goes I have been line breeding macs for a while now with some great results and with no problems to date.


----------



## Kathryn_ (Aug 26, 2008)

> I think the lack of knowledge has more to do with the lack of diseases rather then a lack of research.



See, I just wouldn't be comfortable making a statement like that. It's possible that at present there are no significant genetic diseases in reptiles, but I think it's highly unlikely. The difference is that dogs, cats and fish have been selectively inbred for thousands of years, so we know about the problems that occur. We haven't been messing with reptiles long enough to find out yet, and as I said to ALK, it's equally possible that sick animals aren't recognised, and are just assumed to be bad feeders or sterile eggs.


----------



## CodeRed (Aug 26, 2008)

Kathyrn,
You're omitting the fact that breeders _select_ their stock from all their available offspring. Animals that are identified as carrying genetic diseases will be culled or at least not bred from. Even in the case where a possible genetic disease may not show up until later in life will be picked up by the breeder as these animals are kept well into adulthood. Lineages carrying genetic diseases become extinct by the hand of the breeder.


----------



## Kathryn_ (Aug 26, 2008)

CodeRed: What you're saying only applies to dominant characteristics and animals that are homozygous for recessive traits. Of course nobody would breed from one of those animals, but the fact is most genetic diseases are recessive conditions that can hide for generations, or show up again and again and again in the same lineages without homozygous animals being bred to one another. The point is that you don't *know* you've bred two heterozygous animals until the offspring hatch and they're sick, and if like people are saying, you've inbred siblings four or six or eight times, there could now be dozens or even hundreds of hetrozygous animals in existence, in the hands of people who don't know about the disease allele until *they* breed that animal to another het, possibly siblings or cousins or second-cousins of their first animal, without being aware of that, and produce *more* messed up offpspring.


----------



## CodeRed (Aug 26, 2008)

You missed the point. The breeder would eventually discover this, either through his own animals or from someone who has purchased his animals. 

In any case this does not appear to happen in reptiles. Some of the old time breeder have 8th and 9th generation animals that show no genetic problems (eg blond mac and jungle lineages).


----------



## PimmsPythons (Aug 26, 2008)

inbreeding has very little effect on reptiles.you will find that most wild reptiles,especially pythons,are a product of inbreeding. they tend not to stray from their home territory so end up breeding with their relatives.that is why we find big populations surviving well on small islands, for example, chapple island tiger snakes,komodo dragons, galapagos tortises,lava lizards, galapagos land iguanas,even populations of pythons on islands off north queensland and dozens through indonesia,etc,etc.when i visited the Darwin center ,on the galapagos,their scientists have been inbreeding their tortises from individual islands to save some from extinction with no ill effects.inbreeding healthy reptiles can also be a way to keep bad traits and genes out of the line.


----------



## Perko (Aug 26, 2008)

I think BIGGUY has got 10th gen Blond macs!!!


----------



## CodeRed (Aug 26, 2008)

CraigP said:


> I think BIGGUY has got 10th gen Blond macs!!!


 
Yeap, sure does.


----------



## cris (Aug 26, 2008)

Kathryn_ said:


> CodeRed: Of course nobody would breed from an animal with an obvious genetic disease, but the fact is most genetic diseases are recessive conditions that can hide for generations, or show up again and again and again in the same lineages without homozygous animals being bred to one another. The point is that you don't *know* you've bred two hetrozygous animals until the offspring hatch and they're sick, and if like people are saying, you've inbred siblings four or six or eight times, there could now be dozens or even hundreds of hetrozygous animals in existence, in the hands of people who don't know about the disease allele until *they* breed that animal to another het, possibly siblings or cousins or second-cousins of their first animal, without being aware of that, and produce *more* messed up offpspring.



This scenario can happen with any sort of breeding, sure inbreeding will bring out recessive phenotypes which can either mean reptile food if it is bad, a perfectly fit specimen or possibly a massive amount of cash if it looks abnormal and can still survive. Once they show up they can be selected for or against as the breeder chooses. Ultimately though you can only eliminate recessive problems through inbreeding(i think?).


----------



## luke.r.s (Aug 26, 2008)

ive seen a journal article which mentions 20 generations with no detectable inbreeding problems (in the states). yes inbreeding will narrow genetics and possibly bring up recessive conditions (some wanted). although if no recessive faults are present in the original parent population then none should come up with inbreeding unless due to a spontanious mutation.
-L


----------



## Kathryn_ (Aug 26, 2008)

> Once they show up they can be selected for or against as the breeder chooses.



Only if the breeder retains all the offspring, which clearly doesn't happen very often and certainly won't in the case of intentional inbreeding for particular traits. Once they're out of the breeder's hands, there's no knowing how many times they'll be bred, or inbred, and no way of controlling that unless the breeder takes the financial risk of calling everyone they've sold animals to over the years and telling those people not to breed them, just in case. Which, if the responses to this thread are any indication, most people would ignore anyway  

All of these anecdotal examples of people who have inbred without issue are great, and I'm, very glad that none of those breeders have had problems and that those animals have all been happy and healthy. But it's kind of like saying "I know loads of people who get roaring drunk and drive around at 150kph and they've never crashed!" Doesn't mean nobody's ever going to get wrapped around a tree, and it's a risk that I personally don't feel is worth taking, even for the obviously very large sums of money involved.


----------



## Ramsayi (Aug 26, 2008)

Kathryn_ said:


> Only if the breeder retains all the offspring, which clearly doesn't happen very often and certainly won't in the case of intentional inbreeding for particular traits. Once they're out of the breeder's hands, there's no knowing how many times they'll be bred, or inbred, and no way of controlling that unless the breeder takes the financial risk of calling everyone they've sold animals to over the years and telling those people not to breed them, just in case. Which, if the responses to this thread are any indication, most people would ignore anyway
> 
> All of these anecdotal examples of people who have inbred without issue are great, and I'm, very glad that none of those breeders have had problems and that those animals have all been happy and healthy. But it's kind of like saying "I know loads of people who get roaring drunk and drive around at 150kph and they've never crashed!" Doesn't mean nobody's ever going to get wrapped around a tree, and it's a risk that I personally don't feel is worth taking, even for the obviously very large sums of money involved.



You seem to be so convinced that it is a problem.A few of us have stated,some by personal experience that to date we have seen no detectable problems.Since you seem to be so insistant that it is a problem how about you show us some examples of problems caused by line breeding reptiles.


----------



## Kathryn_ (Aug 26, 2008)

> Since you seem to be so insistant that it is a problem how about you show us some examples of problems caused by line breeding reptiles.


Have you read my posts? I've stated repeatedly that I'm not aware of any current problems that have yet occurred as a result of inbreeding reptiles, partly because I can't find any good research, partly because I'm not sure people would recognise such diseases for what they were if they did show up, and partly because I'm not sure people would be forthcoming if they did produce sick animals. 

* Even if *these are coincidences, and there are indeed no *current* examples of serious genetic disease in reptiles, it will only take two het animals producing a clutch of eight to create at least one, probably two, possibly three very sick animals. If those parent animals come from a long line of inbreeding then they are likely to have dozens of close relatives also carrying that allele. There was a first time for Familial Alzheimer's, there was a first time for Tay-Sachs, and there might very well be many first times for many genetic diseases in different reptile species that will lead to a lot of very sick animals leading very short andunhappy lives. It is a* risk *that is multiplied many, many times by inbreeding, and in my opinion, and unnecessary and careless one.


----------



## junglepython2 (Aug 26, 2008)

So what?? The sick animals wouldn't be bred and therefore the recessive conditions quickly weaned out.


----------



## Nagraj (Aug 26, 2008)

junglepython2 said:


> So what?? The sick animals wouldn't be bred and therefore the recessive conditions quickly weaned out.




1/ Is it ok to knowingly produce defective animals for profit?

2/ Fatal genetic conditions are not always revealed pre breeding age.


----------



## Hickson (Aug 26, 2008)

A few people have mentioned scientific papers that have been written on the subject, and even a book.

I'd like those people to cite the title and author of those publications as I'd be very interested in reading what has and hasn't been proven scientifically, as opposed to some of the broad generalisations made previously in this thread.



Hix


----------



## notechistiger (Aug 26, 2008)

> It is a* risk*






> I've stated repeatedly that I'm not aware of any current problems that have yet occurred as a result
> of inbreeding reptiles, partly because I can't find any good research,


 
You seem to be basing your opinions upon nothing but evidence produced from tests on mammals and fish. You can't make an informative arguement unless you know all the facts- which you don't, because as you say, there is no good research that you can find. There are people who have been breeding reptiles for _many_ years (and I can't stress that "many" enough), and have found *no* evidence of genetic problems due to inbreeding.

My point is, I'm much more willing to take the word of an experienced keeper over your opinions.

~ notechistiger.


----------



## Kathryn_ (Aug 27, 2008)

Someone else very helpfully dug me up an article by some nice biologists from Berkley in the states: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/relevance/IIIA1Inbreeding.shtml

Can *anyone* find me a referenced article or a chapter in a text book, by a qualified geneticist, written in the last twenty years, that argues that there's *no chance* of inbreeding producing as yet undiscovered genetic disease in reptiles? Not that isolated incidences have occurred without producing ill effects, which is anecdotal evidence and nothing more, but that they *couldn't possibly*? Anyone? Bueller?



> have found *no* evidence of genetic problems due to inbreeding.



People keep raising this as if it's hard proof of anything other than luck, but for argument's sake let's treat it like it could be. I'd be very curious to see their non-viable offspring rates over ten generations of sib-sib breeding. Five, even. Poor feeders, dead eggs, the lot - anything that didn't make it to six months old. As you agree, part of the problem is lack of good information. We have many breeders on here, non? I would assume they all keep good records? Let's assume everyone's completely honest and see if we can compare mortality rates over five gens sib-sib or sib-parent inbreeding versus five gens normal breeding, in the same species. People can pm me their records privately, could even email them to me anonymously. No-one's got anything to lose, I won't even post results if they'd prefer I didn't - it's for my own curiosity. The more generations and pairs I get info on, the more realistic the results. Any takers? The Anteresia group seems a likely possibility?


----------



## cris (Aug 27, 2008)

I can guarantee you that inbreeding will produce currently undiscovered genetic disease. It isnt really a problem though, there is massive amounts evidence showing inbreeding not to be a problem over many generations across various animals. I dont see why fundamental genetic theory would change for reptiles.


----------



## Blondie (Aug 27, 2008)

What deformities were observed in the Adders in Sweden? 

I dont think any qualified geneticist would argue that there is no chance of inbreeding producing undiscovered genetic diseases but the chances are, after 10+ generations you would have discovered them or bred them out.


----------



## DanTheMan (Aug 27, 2008)

Sorry if this has been said but i really can t be bothered reading the 4 pages, but I think its ok for a bit, but after a few generations you would probably need to introduced some new genes.
Would be best to give them a bit of genetic variation


----------



## Blondie (Aug 27, 2008)

I agree there should be some variance. I dont think there is sufficient evidence either way and certainly dont think inbreeding reptiles is "positively irresponsible" provided you are not knowingly breeding defects for the sake of breeding.


----------



## hornet (Aug 27, 2008)

disasterpiece7.0 said:


> Then technically I'm not wrong... I didn't say you couldn't do more. This is just info I've collected from experienced breeders that I know and seemingly reliable information found on the net, rather then what I heard on a forum. I'm not saying a forum isn't a great source of information, just there is alot of people throwing round information that may not be 100% accurate on internet forums.



wasnt haven a go at you mate, just being a [email protected]


----------



## junglepython2 (Aug 27, 2008)

Nagraj said:


> 1/ Is it ok to knowingly produce defective animals for profit?
> 
> 2/ Fatal genetic conditions are not always revealed pre breeding age.


 
1. You are not knowingly producing defective animals if they pop up out of the blue, also I can't see how producing defective animals can be profitable.

2. True, but unlike humans snakes breed well into their old age so their overall number of offspring will still be reduced compared to a healthy snake even if they make it to breeding age, so the overall incidence of the negative recessive allele will still be reduced in the population.


----------



## wokka (Aug 27, 2008)

Surely the risk of inbreeding depends upon the genetics of the foundation animals. If the founding animal has an undesirable trait that undesirability may be compounded to produce a negative effect from inbreeding. I believe (not fact just opinion) in general there is no negative effect from inbreeding Australian Pythons, 
However, My observation with Albino Olives is that there are not as many around as there should be given the time and consequent opportunity which has passed since the original albino olive was caught in Darwin. Whilst some of the falures with Albino Olives may be put down to management I believe there is heretible fault which limits reproduction in these animals. With this in mind I try to breed White to het to bring in new blood which may overide this fault.There is something like 100 breeding age animals in Austrlia yet last year only about 20 white olives were produced. This makes me think something is wrong. The market reflects this with a premium paid for animals which breed freely and a reduced price for those from less successful pairings. Added to the difficulties in breeding seems to come difficulties with feeding. It seems the original Albino Olive may have carried some undesirable as well as desirable traits.


----------



## Nagraj (Aug 27, 2008)

junglepython2 said:


> 1. You are not knowingly producing defective animals if they pop up out of the blue, also I can't see how producing defective animals can be profitable.




Oh, but you are knowingly doing so, by continually line beeding animals for a certain trait when you know that the chance of a defect increases with every incestuous breeding you do.

Obviously it's not the visually defective animals which are profitable but the apparently healthy siblings which have the desired trait but which almost certainly carry defective genes as well.


----------



## wokka (Aug 27, 2008)

gman78 said:


> They all end up coming from the one alibino olive don't they?
> They darwin's all come from Blondie



Not true! Blondie was a Territory Wildlife Park animal lent to Soutrhern Cross on breeding loan. Blondie was found in Darwin. Another line called White Phoenix originated from a wild caught animal from Adelaide River area over 50 kilometers from Darwin.


----------



## gregcranston (Aug 27, 2008)

I started a thread very simlar to this a couple of months ago: http://www.aussiepythons.com/forum/exotics-other-reptiles/inbreeding-bearded-dragons-86211
However is was relating to bearded dragons more than snakes. Worryingly it seems that inbreeding is quite common in the reptile world.


----------



## cris (Aug 27, 2008)

Asian house geckos in Australia are a good example to think about, i certainly dont think they are unfit or suffering from abnormally high rates of genetic disease.


----------



## Renagade (Aug 27, 2008)

CodeRed said:


> Kathyrn,
> You're omitting the fact that breeders _select_ their stock from all their available offspring. Animals that are identified as carrying genetic diseases will be culled or at least not bred from. Even in the case where a possible genetic disease may not show up until later in life will be picked up by the breeder as these animals are kept well into adulthood. Lineages carrying genetic diseases become extinct by the hand of the breeder.


 
"animals that are identified" seem to be the key words in this argument. We can all establish from many past arguments that breeders do indeed inbreed their herps and so far there are no negative effects which have been declared due to this inbreeding. Yes herps may inbreed in the wild, but the chance of 10 generations of brothers and sisters breeding are beyond slim. personally i'd never buy a herp which has knowingly been inbred over 4 or 5 times, that's my opinion, and it is up to the buyer to ask the relevant questons to the breeder of the history and background of the animal they are interested in purchasing.


----------



## CodeRed (Aug 27, 2008)

Renagade said:


> "animals that are identified" seem to be the key words in this argument.


 
Yes, you need to be able to identify defective lines to guarrantee that it will be culled. Eventually if the disease is signifcant you will be able to identify any genetic carriers.



> We can all establish from many past arguments that breeders do indeed inbreed their herps and so far there are no negative effects which have been declared due to this inbreeding. Yes herps may inbreed in the wild, but the chance of 10 generations of brothers and sisters breeding are beyond slim. personally i'd never buy a herp which has knowingly been inbred over 4 or 5 times, that's my opinion, and it is up to the buyer to ask the relevant questons to the breeder of the history and background of the animal they are interested in purchasing.


 
Thats a shame coz then you will miss out on some of the best lines of jungles, blonde macs, albinos, roughies and probably a few more too.


----------



## TrueBlue (Aug 27, 2008)

wokka, personally i dont think that there is anything heritable wrong with the albino olives, imo its the way they are kept and cycled by most people that is the problem.


----------



## wokka (Aug 27, 2008)

TB maybe you are right but given that they are kept by some of the most experienced keepers in the country the numbers are'nt there. Look at Snake Ranch with one of the biggest collections of the oldest albino olive genetics in Australia and to date, they only manage to produce a few white snakes a year.


----------



## TrueBlue (Aug 27, 2008)

I still belive its to do with the way people keep them. simple as that.
Wasnt their excuse last season, that the females were too fat.?. Which would of been a major part of the problem imo.
Most people keep olives way to fat and imo is half the reason they have trouble breeding them.
Youve seen the way i keep my snakes, and none of them are anywhere near what you would call fat, and everything that i want to breed, breeds every year including olives, albino or normal.

Besides look at normal olives, they have been kept in captivity for a few decades in oz. Yet even now there seem to ever only be a handfull of clutches produced every year, and even less that are bred consistantly.
Once again, imo its all to do with the way they are kept.


----------



## wokka (Aug 27, 2008)

Yeah I suppose if you do the wrong thing for 20 years its still the wrong thing. Perhaps experience isn't all its made out to be.


----------



## Renagade (Aug 27, 2008)

CodeRed said:


> Yes, you need to be able to identify defective lines to guarrantee that it will be culled. Eventually if the disease is signifcant you will be able to identify any genetic carriers.
> 
> 
> 
> Thats a shame coz then you will miss out on some of the best lines of jungles, blonde macs, albinos, roughies and probably a few more too.


 
Hopefully one day. If passing judgement on whether i will or wont buy animal from the "best" lines because it is or isnt inbred becomes the main issue i face, as oppose to not having the space or money, then id be stoked.


----------



## junglepython2 (Aug 27, 2008)

Nagraj said:


> Oh, but you are knowingly doing so, by continually line beeding animals for a certain trait when you know that the chance of a defect increases with every incestuous breeding you do.
> 
> Obviously it's not the visually defective animals which are profitable but the apparently healthy siblings which have the desired trait but which almost certainly carry defective genes as well.


 
I still haven't seen any evidence showing that inbreeding in reptiles is a major problem.

And regarding the second point, healthy animals which are not inbred are just as likely to carry a hidden recessive allele if not more so then a line bred animal, so can't see how that is at all relevant


----------



## Nagraj (Aug 27, 2008)

junglepython2 said:


> I still haven't seen any evidence showing that inbreeding in reptiles is a major problem.



A lack of evidence is not a lack of problems.

How many people keep track of, and are willing to admit to, high mortality rates in their highly inbred lines?


----------



## CodeRed (Aug 27, 2008)

Nagraj, breeders might not want to admit problems, but their customers would make it known pretty quickly if a lineage was sub-standard in any way.


----------



## Sdaji (Aug 27, 2008)

I've studied at uni, I have a major in genetics, I've been breeding reptiles over well over 10 years, I've visited some of the biggest and best snake breeding facilities in the world. I don't believe inbreeding in snakes is a big concern in terms of their health while in captivity. There are countless cases of snakes being inbred for many generations producing no observable problems.

There are some cases of inbreeding causing problems; blindness in the geckoes mentioned, Jaguar Carpets carry a lethal recessive allele (quite likely the one which causes the jaguar trait), and a few others. In those cases, the situation is very simple and avoiding it is not a problem.

There are very few documented cases of inbreeding depression in wild reptiles, but it is known in Cunningham's Skinks - a species highly unusual in its breeding, in that they will sometimes actually prefer not to reproduce rather than reproduce with a close relative. The fact that they have such incredibly unusual behaviour among reptiles and are one of the few species with inbreeding problems speaks volumes; it is strong evidence that it isn't much of an issue for other species.

Inbreeding depression was observed in the Vipers as mentioned. This is a classic study of inbreeding depression, and a very interesting one. My studies in genetics (including having this viper example being used in courses I've taken, and one I've been examined on multiple times), and my background in herpetoculture lead me to be almost certain that if those wild vipers had been brought into captivity they would have been perfectly healthy and bred without any troubles at all. In the benign conditions of captivity, inbreeding depression is often not observable or important....

As we know, rats and mice (mammals by the way) have been inbred for countless generations and are perfectly happy and healthy in captivity, but release them into the wild and unless they're lucky enough to find a nice place to live near human dwellings, they will drop dead quickly. They have retained everything required to thrive in captivity, but have lost abilities essential in the wild.

To give hypothetical examples, let's say that most of a population had the ability to resist a type of tick often occuring in the wild. We established a population in captivity and by chance one of the founding animals was heterozygous for a fault which made them highly vulnerable to the tick, and by chance the whole captive population ended up losing the resistance. We'd never know, we'd never care, but release those snakes and bang, they're all going to die. This same principle applies to countless traits (cold resistance, toxin resistance, ability to digest certain animals, ability to recognise certain prey, ability to avoid predators, I could list thousands), and when you remove the selective pressures of the wild, some of these will be lost (they'll actually be lost whether or not you inbreed, but they'll be lost more quickly if you do). To our snakes in captivity it just doesn't matter. Yes, it does mean that multigeneration captive snakes will often be very poorly suited to release, which is actually probably a very good thing since they are almost certainly not going to be needed for release and many will accidentally escape. What I've described here are Mendelian traits. Similar situations exist with multigenic and complex traits, but describing them would take far longer than a page or so, and it wouldn't be understandable by most reptile forum users (and if anyone could understand it they'd already have studied complex genetics anyway!).

Kathryn: it's cute that you're studying genetics and want to teach us all about what you've learned, but what they teach you in first and second year university genetics are generalised principles which mainly apply to mammals (and sometimes they'll cover plants too). As you'll learn if you continue studying genetics, things are extrememly complicated in the world of genetics. There is an exception to every rule and there are cases where just about everything imaginable happens. For reasons geneticists don't yet understand, reptiles are genetically far more robust than mammals and birds. The types of hybrids possible with reptiles (Woma x Ball for example) would be genetically unthinkable in a mammal context. We have parthenogenetic reptiles, but mammals are genetically incapable of such a thing. Mammals have things like genetic imprinting to deal with, which reptiles do not. Some of the principles you're learning apply very well to reptiles, but some do not. As you learn more you'll start to learn how to tell the difference, but keep in mind that even the best geneticists get completely thrown by reptiles if they're unfamiliar with them. Theory is great to use as a guide, but never let vague theory get in the way of a mountain of demonstrable evidence.

Good luck with your studies though! It's great to see you applying what you've learned, and in time I hope you'll become one of the precious few learned geneticists in our ranks. If you'd ever like to talk genetics, get in touch


----------



## junglepython2 (Aug 27, 2008)

Nagraj said:


> A lack of evidence is not a lack of problems.
> 
> How many people keep track of, and are willing to admit to, high mortality rates in their highly inbred lines?


 
That works both ways, there is no real evidence of the opposite so how is inbreeding *knowingly* producing defective animals like you implied in your previous post?


----------



## wokka (Aug 27, 2008)

Inbreeding in captivity thrives because we protect our animals from the natural selection which occurs in the wild. In the wild if an animal gets sick it will more than likely die but in captivity we save it at all cost so it can breed ofspring which also may be suseptable to that disease. Poor hunters in the wild die but in captivity we catch there food for them and shove it down their throat if they wont eat ,so they have the opportunity to produce more non feeding snakes. 
Whilst this applies to all captive bred animals it shields the negative effect of inbreeding in captivity more than in the wild.


----------



## mysnakesau (Aug 27, 2008)

I haven't read all the replies yet so sorry if I've repeated anything.

But if inbreeding would be an issue don't you think we'd see many deformities in the wild? 1 mother has lots of babies and those babies don't pack their bags and leave the country. 30 babies in the same location grow up to hang around and find the opposite sex and just keep on breeding. Perhaps you should catch some of these wild animals and do DNA tests on them. You'll probably find perfectly healthy genes and you have no idea to be able to judge whether it has bred with its family or not. They don't know any better and I guess they've been made to not need to know.


----------



## Renagade (Aug 27, 2008)

mysnakesau said:


> I haven't read all the replies yet so sorry if I've repeated anything.
> 
> But if inbreeding would be an issue don't you think we'd see many deformities in the wild? 1 mother has lots of babies and those babies don't pack their bags and leave the country. 30 babies in the same location grow up to hang around and find the opposite sex and just keep on breeding. Perhaps you should catch some of these wild animals and do DNA tests on them. You'll probably find perfectly healthy genes and you have no idea to be able to judge whether it has bred with its family or not. They don't know any better and I guess they've been made to not need to know.


 
keep in mind that there is usually a high mortality rate in the wild.


----------



## Kathryn_ (Aug 27, 2008)

> We have parthenogenetic reptiles, but mammals are genetically incapable of such a thing. Mammals have things like genetic imprinting to deal with, which reptiles do not.


Parthenogenesis is interesting, as is hermaphroditic reproduction, but not really relevant to inbreeding beyond that fact that obviously, the dear little self-cloning critters don't need to worry about it. They need to worry about environmental changes or diseases that could potentially wipe out an entire family due to the same issue: lack of genetic variation. Though an interesting factoid is that some species of geckos are capable of parthenogenesis and sexual reproduction, which gives them quite the advantage over the rest of us. 

It's an interesting point you've made about the very fact that they're captive stocks protecting them from many potential problems caused by inbreeding - to be honest, that hadn't occurred to me. Inbreeding aside it's always concerned me that "bad feeders" that would die in the wild are kept, nurtured and sometimes bred by reptile keepers, though my girl is one of them. As you've rightly pointed out, if they're never released it doesn't matter, so I guess I'm just a (theoretical) elitist. 

I'm honestly not convinced that five or ten gens sib-sib inbreeding wouldn't cause depression, particularly an increase in egg mortality, but again, a "stillborn" animal doesn't suffer so I suppose it's not an issue. In fact, the meticulous incubation and care captive eggs get could very well save enough that the survival rate's as high or higher than a wild clutch. I'd just really hate to see a serious metabolic disorder or something like that pop up in a bunch of captive, inbred reps when it could have been avoided. 

And finally, give a girl a break on the condescension, your holy wiseness  I might be a pissed off undergrad with less knowledge and experience than you, but that doesn't mean there won't come a sad day when my concerns turn out to be well-founded.


----------



## wokka (Aug 27, 2008)

Kath 'In the wild the deformed animals get eaten.


----------



## notechistiger (Aug 27, 2008)

Everyone should just skip to Sdaji's post. He cleared it up better than anyone else, I think.


----------



## Kathryn_ (Aug 27, 2008)

> He cleared it up better than anyone else, I think.



And that'll be the forum's understatement of the year


----------



## notechistiger (Aug 27, 2008)

Lol.


----------



## Sdaji (Aug 27, 2008)

Kathryn: parthenogenesis was just one of the examples I used to point out that reptiles are genetically more robust than mammals; they're capable of stuff mammals are not. The effects of pathenogenesis are not relevant to anything which isn't parthenogenetic, but the fact that parthenogenesis is so widespread in reptiles says something. Indulge me, I can't think of any Australian facultative parthenogenetic geckoes of the top of my head.

Bad feeders being kept and bred concerns me too. I agree with you fully there. That, however, is a different issue and applies whether we're only ever breeding brother to sister or if we never inbreed at all.

You may not honestly be convinced, but hey, you're obviously a new kid on the block, and I honestly don't think your opinion is something I should replace my own with. Many of us have seen it in countless lines. Inbreeding depression doesn't work by suddenly throwing out nasty traits after a certain number of generations. If you get through a few generations without a problem, any problems which come up after that are going to be very subtle. If you've had no problems at all after a few generations, chances are you're not going to get any at all. If you get over 10 generations or so without a problem, you're almost certainly not going to have any issues (novel mutations aside).

Maybe we'll find a very rare case of inbreeding depression, hey, it wouldn't surprise me. If you breed millions of animals you're going to have a few problems here and there no matter what you do, and inbreeding in reptiles would probably come in at around number 1,000 on a priority-ranked list of health concerns. If such a case does pop up we can simply use some careful selective breeding to get around it.

If inbreeding is such an animal welfare concern, we should probably be kicking and screaming about the 100th generation inbred rodents we're using as feed!


----------



## redbellybite (Aug 27, 2008)

after 6 pages ................the horse is finally FLOGGED............


----------



## Kathryn_ (Aug 27, 2008)

> You may not honestly be convinced, but hey, you're obviously a new kid on the block, and I honestly don't think your opinion is something I should replace my own with.


I'm certainly not arguing that you should. I also wasn't arguing that the particular lines that are already inbred are going to suffer, that would be irrational. I'm concerned that somewhere, eventually, someone's might start a line that will. That's all. I didn't actually think it was that complex or novel an idea, but most of the people who've responded seem to consider it tantamount heresy, so what say we leave it here.


----------



## mebebrian (Aug 27, 2008)

The results of inbreeding maybe?...


----------



## Sdaji (Aug 27, 2008)

Kathryn: I have no doubt that isolated cases of inbreeding will pop up. I have no doubt that genetic issues completely unrelated to inbreeding will pop up. I have no doubt that the vast majority will continue to inbreed heavily without care or consequence and a small but vocal minority will get through the first half of a genetics subject around about the time they're first getting into snakes and kick up a fuss about it 

mebebrian: Two-headed reptiles pop up in the wild and also in clutches from unrelated parents in captivity. I've seen two-headed babies which hatched from parthenogens! After 100,000 years or so, those genotypes are tried and tested, they're spectacularly wonderful genotypes, but even with no hint of a genetic flaw you can get that sort of thing. Bicephaly has not been known to have a genetic component.


----------



## Kathryn_ (Aug 28, 2008)

> the first half of a genetics subject



Finishing the second year, not that it matters, but thanks for the vote of confidence in my ignorance  Really. Belittling what a total stranger is doing with their life is uh, really "cute". You generally seem like a very intelligent and funky person, and there's actually no need at all to take the piss out of me. Not because of this, anyway


----------



## Sdaji (Aug 28, 2008)

Kathryn_ said:


> Finishing the second year, not that it matters, but thanks for the vote of confidence in my ignorance  Really. Belittling what a total stranger is doing with their life is uh, really "cute". You generally seem like a very intelligent and funky person, and there's actually no need at all to take the piss out of me. Not because of this, anyway



I'm just mucking around  I'm actually not as arrogant or condescending as I sound on the forums. I just like stirring people up and having a bit of fun  Life would be pretty weird if I took the forums seriously 

You don't seem like the type who would get upset about my light hearted quips, and if you actually have been, I am sorry.

Looking forward to seeing something which is genuinely worth taking the piss out of you for :lol:


----------



## Kathryn_ (Aug 28, 2008)

Don't mind me, I just take my nerdism terribly seriously. 

Just wander into my local late on a friday night. You'll laugh, I promise.


----------



## Carpetcleaner (Aug 28, 2008)

I love the part where we kiss and make up.


----------



## redbellybite (Aug 28, 2008)

well I experience finger down throat urges................. in these "kiss and make ups"


----------



## Sdaji (Aug 28, 2008)

I hate you, I hate you all. You're all stupid, worthless and almost certainly ugly. I bet your parents were related too.


----------



## Ramsayi (Aug 28, 2008)

Could this be another aps romance in the making? Lets hope not,could you imagine the poor children from said pairing? Poor buggers might end up carrying the double nerd gene. :shock:


----------



## Sdaji (Aug 28, 2008)

:lol: Homozygous for nerd :lol:

Well, no, hopefully I can be nice to someone without it being interpreted as getting fresh. I'm already partnered up with the world's best woman, and flirting on APS is not something I'd be keen to do! :shock:

(Yeah, now redbellybite can puke about me being so mushy about my girl  :lol: ).


----------



## Cheyne_Jones (Aug 28, 2008)

Does anyone know much about the neuro problems that have popped up in some of the jaguar morph carpets over seas? Is that a result of inbreeding or the morph itself, i know it doesnt occur in all jaguars so could it be a result of inbreeding?

I dont know much about genetics at all, can neurological issues even be caused by inbreeding?


----------



## Jeremy Kriske (Aug 29, 2008)

The neuro problems with jags are tied to the morph, not inbreeding. No amount of outcrossing has eliminated the problem. Some believe all jags have neuro problems, it's just to what degree. 

Here's some reading for you:
http://74.220.207.106/~moreliap/forums/showthread.php?t=15149&highlight=neuro+problems

http://74.220.207.106/~moreliap/forums/showthread.php?t=16274&highlight=neuro+problems

http://74.220.207.106/~moreliap/forums/showthread.php?t=16361&highlight=neuro+problems

http://74.220.207.106/~moreliap/forums/showthread.php?t=16386&highlight=neuro+problems


----------

