# Designer Colors



## Jacqui (Jul 21, 2008)

What do you feel about the future tortoises being breed not for colorings they naturally would have, but more eye pleasing ones? Or crossing different types together like Maps and Sliders? Would you like a Star, that is red, orange, or bright yellow with the dark black markings? How about a red Russian anybody?


----------



## egyptiandan (Jul 21, 2008)

Not sure if you can get a tortoise in another color Jacqui, there are though plenty of people that are breeding to enhance or intensify the colors they already have. 
Like Douglas breeding for Stars with more rays. I could see that getting to the point of an all yellow Star.
Terry breeds for color in his Redfoots. 
There are now albino, hypomelanistic and leusistic tortoise out there, with people trying to breed those.

Me on the other hand  I could care less about color. It's the species or subspecies that matters to me. One of my favorite tortoises, the Chaco tortoise, is one of the least colorful tortoises out there.
Give me the ugliest Burmese Star tortoise pair or Radiated pair and I'd be a happy camper. Just the chance to breed those species would do it for me. 

Danny


----------



## wayne.bob (Jul 21, 2008)

i agree entirely with you Danny. i also think that someone in the future will genetically alter torts to have different colors. i think it will be awhile before that happens but they have already made Mice that glow in the dark in Japan. its only a matter of time before torts start glowing as well.


----------



## Yvonne G (Jul 21, 2008)

wayne.bob said:


> i agree entirely with you Danny. i also think that someone in the future will genetically alter torts to have different colors. i think it will be awhile before that happens but they have already made Mice that glow in the dark in Japan. its only a matter of time before torts start glowing as well.



You mean like the guy that breeds water turtles with no eyes or two heads (on purpose)! I think its wrong. Its done strictly for the money. And he sells them to anyone who can come up with the bucks, not even caring what kind of treatment the turtle will get in his new home. However, spending that much money on a two headed turtle they probably would take care of their investment. Who knows. My opinion is, if its to the animal's detriment, its wrong.

Yvonne


----------



## chelonologist (Jul 21, 2008)

My favorite animals are those that display the most beautiful or striking markings/coloration of the natural form, such as a radiated tortoise with striking profusion of yellow rays. Even among snakes, which have produced lots of mutations that breeders call 'morphs' or 'phases' or what have you, I prefer the natural forms the best. For example, I have two Honduran milk snakes that display the natural form (which I LOVE), but I'm not really at all attracted to the tangerines or hypos or whatever else is out there. 

Just give me the best example of the wild form and I'm happy


----------



## Laura (Jul 21, 2008)

What about Bull Dogs? Man made, have to be artificially inseminated and most have to have cesareans.. Lots of health issues, very expensive to buy and care for, short life spans for the most part. Very heat senistive...but they are cool dogs..


----------



## Jacqui (Jul 22, 2008)

How about if we bred Sulcatas that only grew to Redfoot size? Redfoots the size of Russians?


I think someday both the colors and size things (and more) will happen. The same as with the snakes (and other animals) currently, main difference is the amount of time that has to be invested because of slow growth to breeding maturity.

I have no trouble with the intensifying of colors and such, that still keeps them in their basic natural state. Just would hate losing what makes each of these animals special and unique in their world just to make them more visually appealing to the public.


----------



## egyptiandan (Jul 22, 2008)

Not sure what you mean Jacqui by the color thing in snakes. There isn't a single snake that I can think of thats a different color than what can occur naturally in the species.
The only way to get another color into a species is to breed it to another species, which is quite possible. Take red factor Canarys, red is never found in a canary. So breeders took another species of finch (not sure which on off the top of my head), with red, and bred it to a canary. So than they had red birds with a canarys song.
Not sure how this would affect the fertility of the hybrid tortoise, as I don't think anyone has bred 2 hybrids together. I have though seen someone breeding a Marginated/Greek hybrid to a Marginated and getting fertile eggs and babies. They still have the characteristics of both species.
On to the size thing, it is probably possible to get dwarfs of both those species. But like any other species that produces dwarfs, it doesn't change the size of babies or eggs. So a dwarf Redfoot would have the same size eggs that a normal size Redfoot would. That would cause soooooooooooooooooo many problems and I can think the experiment wouldn't go far with your females dying from being unable to pass eggs.
These thing are cool to think about, but in the real world highly unlikely to come about. Unless someone wants to do some gene splicing. 

Danny


----------



## elegans (Jul 23, 2008)

emysemys said:


> wayne.bob said:
> 
> 
> > i agree entirely with you Danny. i also think that someone in the future will genetically alter torts to have different colors. i think it will be awhile before that happens but they have already made Mice that glow in the dark in Japan. its only a matter of time before torts start glowing as well.
> ...




I just came back from visiting a turtle farm today here in Florida. The person probably produces close to half of the native turtles produced in the state, and I can tell you for a fact that he does not ever try to breed for two headed or no eyed turtles. They do happen when you hatch out many hundreds of thousands of turtles. There is no intent on the part of the breeder for those particular mutants, just randomness. Your statement is almost like saying that Baronum & Bailey had a breeding plan for "dwarfism" which they certainly did not. Not to say that they were not more than happy to make a buck off of one that could work in the show. Anyone who has ever bred anything, plant or animal; had a purpose to do so. Usually this did involve the concept of improvement. Cabbage, cauliflower, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, kale and many others are exactly the same plant bred and selected for different taste, texture etc. As far as truly "genetically" altering tortoises, it is not likely. Very little is known of any genes in these animals or how to manipulate them. The cost to learn about these genes is extraordinary! Hybrids have been made between a few different species, but not many with success. As far a color mutations goes, so what all we work with is what nature gives us. I did not ever expect to hatch out a lavender albino redfoot. But why not enjoy an incredibly beautiful animal. Douglas Beard / Flora & Fauna


----------



## Redfoot NERD (Jul 23, 2008)

To spin-off of what Doug said:

Although I haven't had quite the opportunity to select the "breed-stock" that Doug has.. 'we' both have chosen the breeders that we have.. that must have the 'gene-pool' to produce the colors that they produce. After speaking with Doug.. we are both waiting for what looks like another 3-4 years minimum before we can really "breed for color" as some suggest.

Plants and mammals [ and humans for that matter ] can be 'gene-manipulated'. Snakes can be "cross-bred" to some extent.. which takes what - 2 years or less?

Tortoises [ as I agree with Doug ] are a 12 year deal!

NERD


----------



## Minotaur (Jul 23, 2008)

The only thing I dislike about breeding specifically for genetic mutations and novel coloration is the build-up of deleterious recessive alleles in the animals' genome. Many breeders, especially those of the more common reptiles such as leopard geckos and ball pythons, continuously inbreed animals with unique colorations and then breed them to other inbred animals with strange colorations, leading to all the crazy designer colors like creamsicle, caramel, snowflake, blizzard, etc. (This means that each phenotype's linked genotype carries it's own deleterious alleles, so when you breed several of these phenotypes together, you start to get more and more inviable animals). The problem with this is that instead of just having a small percentage of deformed or inviable animals you start producing many, many malformed individuals. The number of leopard gecko "culls" that are shipped to the zoo as feeders from just one person who breeds for these designer traits is huge - we receive around 300-400 geckos with crooked spines, no eyeballs, extra limbs, internal organ problems, etc. every month or so. It's because of this that I question the ethics of breeding for these designer colors.

@ Danny - it is true that the [genes] for all the color combinations seen in snakes today occur naturally, but in nature animals who have these alleles don't usually survive, and if they do survive long enough to breed, almost certainly never come across another genetic anomaly to breed with to create some of the crazy designer colors seen on the market today (therefore even if all the genes occur naturally, the genotype combinations responsible for the new phenotypes does not). So you can create new color morphs within a species without crossing to another species, you simply have to combine novel genotypes that would never be combined in the wild. Hope that makes sense.


----------



## Jacqui (Jul 24, 2008)

Minotaur, thank you for saying very clearly what I had in mind with the entire thing when I used snakes as a for instance...and actually what Laura did when bringing up the bulldog. 

Nerd I agree with the comment on how long it would take, but looking at humane nature and seeing how much money can be made by creating these new colors, I think somebody will be doing it.

Douglas I agree, that lavender should be appreciated. I doubt your planning to keep breeding it to siblings for several generations are you? 

Do we take something away from an animal, be it snake, tortoise, whatever, if what we do in breeding it (such as changing it's colors) would make this animal unable to survive in the wild as a snake, tort or whatever?

Isn't it -EJ who is working with a smaller type of redfoot? (Nudge -EJ hey we are having debates where are you???lol)


----------



## egyptiandan (Jul 24, 2008)

Ed is working with Cherryhead Redfoots Jacqui, which are a bit smaller than other types of Redfoots.

I understand exactly what your saying Ken.  I still don't see any "new colors" popping up in say ball pythons. Most of the time it's taking away a color that makes the morphs, to either brighten or mute the colors. I haven't seen any red ball pythons 

The one thing I can think of that really fits this thread, is the few scaleless snakes that have been born (mostly watersnakes). There is at least one breeder trying to find out if it's something you can breed for. Now thats a radical enough design change to make it impossible for these animals to survive in the wild.

Danny


----------



## elegans (Jul 24, 2008)

Actually Minotaur is not that very clear or well thought out. The Bulldog is a much better example if you want to make one. A number of other dog breeds also fall into that category in my eyes. If you can't reproduce naturally then your doomed. More than a couple of dog breeds are all born via C section. this is not the case with any reptiles. And 300-400 geckos a month from a place that produces over 100,000 a year, no big deal. I would also ask where you came up with the idea that a color or pattern mutation also carries with it other deleterious alleles? I have produced as many deformed animals from normal, not line bred animals as "designer morphs." Inbreeding does have its own problems; however if you are willing to cull bad offspring you cannot only breed for the traits that you want, but also breed out flaws. Nature kills most of what it makes, only the strongest or luckiest survive. So I do agree that greed can encourage people to save weak animals that should just be put down but that does not make line breeding a bad thing. I have used line breeding to establish a trait, then outcross for diversities sake. Almost all island species are completely inbred with no ill effects. Just my 2 cents Douglas


----------



## elegans (Jul 24, 2008)

egyptiandan said:


> Ed is working with Cherryhead Redfoots Jacqui, which are a bit smaller than other types of Redfoots.
> 
> I understand exactly what your saying Ken.  I still don't see any "new colors" popping up in say ball pythons. Most of the time it's taking away a color that makes the morphs, to either brighten or mute the colors. I haven't seen any red ball pythons
> 
> ...


 There have also been scaleless albino western diamondback rattlesnakes, scaleless ball pythons and now scaleless bearded dragons. I know for a fact that the scaleless rattlesnakes are very weak animals and a real pain in the *** to keep. Douglas


----------



## Jacqui (Jul 24, 2008)

I thought that even with most island animals, some do end up, because of storms, ect.., traveling among islands and thus changing a little the gene pool?

Nobody said that line breeding is a bad thing, in and of itself. Actually it's a good thing. It becomes bad when it's continually done and the person doing it, only is fixated on one area (such as color) and ignores any weaknesses that may happen. Like the royal families who bred only to their line and ended up with bleeding troubles. Somebody only concerned with money won't be culling his flaws, those will be sold to others so they can breed them too. 


Danny, guess I was wrong, I thought Ed was working on something other then "normal" Cherries.


----------



## Jacqui (Jul 24, 2008)

elegans said:


> There have also been scaleless albino western diamondback rattlesnakes, scaleless ball pythons and now scaleless bearded dragons. I know for a fact that the scaleless rattlesnakes are very weak animals and a real pain in the *** to keep. Douglas



So what about the scaleless rattlesnakes makes them weak or maybe I need to ask, weak in what way?


----------



## elegans (Jul 24, 2008)

They do indeed seem to have some other genes that are carried with the scaleless trait that make them weak and sickly. I do not know anyone that has been able to keep them alive for more than a few years. Maybe a multi generational outbreeding project could fix that? I don't know? Not enough interest, money and way to much risk for most peoples taste though. LOL Douglas


Reread this and you can see where there are many flaws in the theory.

The only thing I dislike about breeding specifically for genetic mutations and novel coloration is the build-up of deleterious recessive alleles in the animals' genome. Many breeders, especially those of the more common reptiles such as leopard geckos and ball pythons, continuously inbreed animals with unique colorations and then breed them to other inbred animals with strange colorations, leading to all the crazy designer colors like creamsicle, caramel, snowflake, blizzard, etc. (This means that each phenotype's linked genotype carries it's own deleterious alleles, so when you breed several of these phenotypes together, you start to get more and more inviable animals). The problem with this is that instead of just having a small percentage of deformed or inviable animals you start producing many, many malformed individuals.


As a side note ball pythons are only recently bred in captivity with any frequency I suspect that Minotaur is relatively new at this whole reptile hobby. When I started working seriously with ball pythons in 1992 there were probably less than 100 clutches a year produced in the USA.


----------



## Minotaur (Jul 25, 2008)

If you could point out the flaws instead of just saying there are flaws, I would be interested in hearing it. I'm fine with criticism, but saying "No, that stuff is wrong" without pointing out why is not a valid critique. You seem to have some experience, and I would be interested in hearing a serious critique from you.

It is a fact that breeding a group of animals who are more closely related will lead to more inviable hatchlings because it increases homozygosity. I didn't say the color pattern carries deleterious alleles, but in inbreeding animals you form gene complexes (groups of genes which are typically passed together) and due to higher number of deleterious alleles from INBREEDING it becomes far more likely that the gene complex which contains the genetics responsible for new colors will also contain those deleterious alleles. Just as certain breeds of dogs come with their own breed-specific problems (hip-dysplasia in American Cocker Spaniels, or disc disease in Dachshunds). Culling does not "breed out" flaws, because flaws are almost always recessive traits - you would have to continuously breed until you found a pair that was homozygous for the non-deleterious allele, which is a bit more involved than simply culling. I'm not saying you will see a gigantic leap in inviable hatchlings, but there will definitely be more. The point of this conversation is whether a new or popular trait is worth any increase in the number of inviable hatchlings.

If all breeders linebred for traits there would be no ethical issue, as animals with undesirable traits (and carriers) wouldn't be allowed to breed - in fact, my argument can't even be applied to linebreeding - however, the market is not being flooded with pedigreed, linebred individuals, it's being flooding with inbred individuals because for the people who are in the hobby just to turn a buck, it is cheaper and easier to simply buy a few snakes and inbreed them to create your stock while simultaneously creating a ridiculous number of inviables which are still bred, than it is find unrelated individuals and breed for specific traits AND non-deleterious alleles.

Also, I'm not sure why the fact that balls weren't widely bred in captivity until recently makes any difference. If anything it shows that inbreeding was most likely used to increase homozygosity in order to produce the new morphs so quickly.

As an aside, I realize that some of the colors I randomly listed in the first post are actually intergrades and such, I just typed a few names I remembered.


----------



## elegans (Jul 29, 2008)

Call me if you want to really figure this out. It is not that complicated! You are so far off the mark that it hardly makes this post worth doing. You were the person that brought up Ball Pythons and now you don't know how it occured? I do. Stop just making up stuff if you don't know what you are talking about. I respect everyone on this site; but a person with 6 reptiles, is going to explain to me what? 

" Also, I'm not sure why the fact that balls weren't widely bred in captivity until recently makes any difference. If anything it shows that inbreeding was most likely used to increase homozygosity in order to produce the new morphs so quickly"

So take some time to find out how wrong you are. I could just make up stuff with real background info. How helpfull would that be. How long have you been keeping reptiles? Best wishes Douglas Beard 305-246-3129


----------



## Minotaur (Jul 29, 2008)

Douglas man, this is a public debate about the ethics of breeding designer colors, so if you have something to add, please do it in the forums (that is the point of this topic after all). You've posted three responses to me stating that I'm wrong and that it isn't very complicated, so by all means share the information!

The information I've laid out in my previous posts is what you'd get with a few semesters of college genetics, I'm not making things up. If for some reason ball pythons are above the statistical laws of genetics regarding breeding for homozygosity and gene fixation then I cede the argument. If you have compelling evidence that there is no increase in the number of pythons born homozygous for recessive deleterious alleles when inbred/linebred, then do share it.

Also, there is no need for ad hominem attacks - the number of reptiles I keep and the length I've kept them have absolutely nothing to do with my knowledge of genetics. My genetics professors weren't animal keepers but they still knew the science of genetics. On the other end of the spectrum there are many people who own and breed oodles of animals and have absolutely no knowledge of genetics.

You seem to have taken personal offense to my posts (which is probably to be expected in a debate forum) but if you reread, you'll see that I have not attacked you at all. On the flip-side, you've insulted me in every post you've made responding to me ("Actually Minotaur is not that very clear or well thought out.", "...I suspect that Minotaur is relatively new at this whole reptile hobby...", and the third post, where it is implied that I'm inexperienced and a liar.) I'm not sure why this is, but once again, I'm welcoming you to share your knowledge (with myself and all the other debaters), as that is what this debate forum is all about. A debate is not about winning, it's about comparing viewpoints and learning - if you provide a good argument and it turns out that by some flaw in my education or logic I am wrong then I will gladly cede the point as that is the true spirit of scientific inquiry.

Anyhow, I have no hard feelings man. I can see that you are passionate about this topic, and that is worthy of respect. Have a good one man, I look forward to your response.

Ken


----------



## elegans (Jul 29, 2008)

I am so sorry, maybe I missed something. What possible conflicts could there be breeding designer colors? They are after all the same animals. We know how to breed many species to the point that they would not be "endangered" but that would not be good for pollitics. I also have more than a few semesters of college genetics, I am able to do 1 out of 128 poss almost instantly. No more said. One of the best lines ever is that there are Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics!


----------



## Redfoot NERD (Jul 30, 2008)

Ken could it be that Doug is saying.. 'The only "book" I want to hear you reference is your own that you've kept from years of breeding experience.' ??

Yep.. "stats" should be enough proof. Of course the "scientists" have to Q? those too! Too bad common sense isn't.





Terry K


----------



## Minotaur (Jul 30, 2008)

Terry, I understand what you're saying, but there is a wealth of scientific papers already in existence on the topic inbreeding/linebreeding and it's effect on homozygosity, which would make any anecdotal evidence of my own (if it even existed) a bit superfluous. I think it should be obvious that the real point of saying that "The only book I want to hear you reference is your own" is to bypass a body of scientific knowledge acquired over the years by many researchers by "moving the goalposts" and claiming that only personal experience matters. I could say something about standing upon the shoulders of giants, but I wouldn't want the same fallacy appearing twice on the same page. 

Doug, I'm not sure what you are saying in your previous post about breeding species that are endangered and politics or what it's applicability to the topic is. Also, the "conflict" in breeding designer colors has been dragged out all over this topic, and it is that you are breeding for homozygosity which inevitably increases the number of expressed deleterious alleles by some small percent. Expression of a deleterious allele does not have to mean the animal dies or is lame, it could be as small as a cow being born sans her tail tassel. That's all this topic is about. Also, the use of an old saying does not make a point, it's an argument fallacy known as Cliche Thinking - statistics are very relative when talking about genetics.


----------



## elegans (Jul 30, 2008)

I would love to read the wealth of scientific papers about reptilian inbreeding/linebreeding and it's effect on homozygosity. But I doubt that many have been written. Most DNA knowledge that we have is from plants, insects or mammals that have very short generational turnarounds. In the time that it would take to do a three generation study of tortoises, I could do at least 72 generations of mice for example. Fruit flies by a factor of 5 to 6. All breeding is done for some reason, usually with the intent of the breeder to improve something. It could be color, size, feed conversion or whatever. By your standard we should not do any of this? Right? Even if by your statement "breeding for homozygosity which inevitably increases the number of expressed deleterious alleles by some small percent" I can live with that. I would still challenge you to prove that you are right though. The reason you don't get 300 deformed normal leopard geckos is because no one breeds them in any numbers. Same goes for corns and ball Pythons. Back to my culling philosophy. Breeding is to plants and animals is what engineering is to products. So far that has worked out pretty well for us. Organisms in the wild keep mutating all the time and nature figures out which ones are best suited to survive and reproduce in the wild. But since that is off the table and these are captive animals it really does not matter. If breeding white Tigers and putting them on display in Zoo's brings up attendance and teaches people to care about the world around them, bring on the white Tigers. Best wishes Douglas


----------



## Minotaur (Jul 30, 2008)

I think you've misunderstood me Douglas - while there is some token increase in the number of expressed deleterious alleles I am not "against" breeding for traits through linebreeding/inbreeding. It's sad that it does create a few more unfit individuals, but I think the practice is interesting and fruitful. A world with only one type of dog/horse/python/whatever would be boring. I am not against breeding for unique traits, I was simply pointing out the downside, since this is an ethics debate I wanted the negative to be clearly defined (as there seemed to be some question as to what the ethical dilemma was in the beginning of the thread). Since most people already appreciate the upside of breeding for specific traits I didn't even mention it, but you are correct, the positive results are astounding - almost all vegetables and fruits have been bred and manipulated for yield, flavor, disease resistance, etc. which is great for mankind. There have also been great uses for farm animals bred for specific uses, like pulling plows, rounding up cattle, laying more eggs, producing more breast meat and on and on. Then in the pet trade, selective breeding has created oodles of variations of animals with different looks, sizes, and temperaments to suit any owner. No, I don't dispute that selective breeding is important and amazing, but in a debate both sides should be clearly defined.

I also agree that there are probably almost no scholarly articles specifically on reptilian inbreeding - I was speaking of articles on inbreeding in general, since the laws of inbreeding/homozygosity are pretty universal (makes sense, as DNA is universal) and there really is no reason to believe that the DNA would act differently in reptiles.

As an aside, I've been pretty caught up in the debate, but I'd like to see the stuff you breed if you have photos online or something.

Have a good one,
Ken


----------



## oswego tort lover (Aug 11, 2008)

i guess the heart of this informative debate is culling ethical or not. those who tend to have more anthropomorphic views about reptialian lifes, would seem to disagree with it on principle. those who breed to sell as i do have in common the knowledge that animals are property that carry an additional responsibly above the care of mere objects .we are all goverened by our own reasoned opinions as to weather we would buy an animal whose existence is created in part by the death of other similar creatures. that is the choice we make as consumers of the product. for me as long as the deformed creatures dont go to waste . a purpose has been served ............ed


----------



## Marla (Oct 19, 2008)

I think it would fun to breed for color with tortoises but also an impossible project..It takes so darn long to grow and adult tortoise as it is, yet select for color traits..I think its amazing that Richard Fife has the Ivory Tortoise (paten on the name too)..By the time you start to see your results your an old man/woman...


----------



## dawnzky05 (Jan 25, 2009)

A red Russian tortoise? I love the idea but I still prefer the natural one.





----------------------------------------------

chic shoes


----------



## nrfitchett4 (Jan 26, 2009)

I just don't think this is a viable option considering to amount of time involved. Even if you started in your teenage years, it would take many generations coupled with many torts to make this happen. 
I guess you could pass it on to your grandchildren!!!


----------



## Pesky Fly (Jul 4, 2009)

I probably donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have any right to post this but as far as my genetics knowledge goes, genes (traits, alleles) cannot build up. Hence Douglas would be correct. As only Ã‚Â½ of an organisms genes come from one parent and Ã‚Â½ from another, the likely hood of it acquiring multiples of the same or similar line gene are slim to none. I breed mammals, rabbits to be exact and yes I have line bred to bring out traits which are desirable. The issue with line breeding is, it will bring out the good traits, but will also bring out the Ã¢â‚¬Å“badÃ¢â‚¬Â traits. So if you have a bunny with a slightly crooked tail, breed it to one of its offspring, you could end up with a noticeably crooked tail. I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know if the same applies to reptiles, but itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s my two cents.


----------



## Jacqui (Jul 5, 2009)

Pesky Fly said:


> I probably donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have any right to post this but as far as my genetics knowledge goes, genes (traits, alleles) cannot build up. Hence Douglas would be correct. As only Ã‚Â½ of an organisms genes come from one parent and Ã‚Â½ from another, the likely hood of it acquiring multiples of the same or similar line gene are slim to none. I breed mammals, rabbits to be exact and yes I have line bred to bring out traits which are desirable. The issue with line breeding is, it will bring out the good traits, but will also bring out the Ã¢â‚¬Å“badÃ¢â‚¬Â traits. So if you have a bunny with a slightly crooked tail, breed it to one of its offspring, you could end up with a noticeably crooked tail. I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know if the same applies to reptiles, but itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s my two cents.



Curious, what type(s) of rabbits? Long ago I raised and showed rabbits (mostly Harlequins)


----------



## Pesky Fly (Jul 6, 2009)

I raise English Lops, Lionheads, Holland Lops, and a few Polish. I show for ARBA.


----------



## stevejack (Sep 24, 2009)

Hi..
That's really great if in future tortoises is in colors.. about that red russian tortoises i like thought... Thanks


----------



## DoctorCosmonaut (Sep 24, 2009)

I personally think personality is the biggest seller for me... colors are pretty, but personality is what makes a good pet great... So color is usually peripheral for me


----------



## f burkart (Oct 17, 2009)

its ridiculous people only do for the money


----------



## Tccarolina (Oct 29, 2009)

Pesky Fly said:


> I probably donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have any right to post this but as far as my genetics knowledge goes, genes (traits, alleles) cannot build up. Hence Douglas would be correct. As only Ã‚Â½ of an organisms genes come from one parent and Ã‚Â½ from another, the likely hood of it acquiring multiples of the same or similar line gene are slim to none. I breed mammals, rabbits to be exact and yes I have line bred to bring out traits which are desirable. The issue with line breeding is, it will bring out the good traits, but will also bring out the Ã¢â‚¬Å“badÃ¢â‚¬Â traits. So if you have a bunny with a slightly crooked tail, breed it to one of its offspring, you could end up with a noticeably crooked tail. I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know if the same applies to reptiles, but itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s my two cents.



Pesky Fly,
I believe you are reiterating what Ken was saying. "Building up expressed deleterious alleles" means that the likelihood of recessive traits are increased. He was not saying the same gene was being multiplied, but that the number of recessive traits are likely to increase, do to compounding of the alleles responsible. He was saying that breeding two genetically similar individuals will increase the likelihood that their offspring will exhibit or carry negative traits as well as the desired trait you are breeding for.
If you breed an albino wild-caught reptile together with a normal individual, you get babies that are heterozygous for albino. They carry the recessive albino allele, but the dominant allele from their other parent is expressed, so they do not show the albino trait, but carry the recessive allele for it. Breeding these offspring together results in some albino, some pure normal, and some het for albino individuals.

However, for most traits it's not so simple. They are not just the result of one gene with three outcomes (AA, aa, or Aa). They are the result of a combination of genes and their alleles or from genes with multiple alleles. Human blood type has three alleles, with six combinations (AA, BB, OO, AB, AO, and BO). 
So if you have a rare disease that is present only when a combination of genes are expressing particular traits, you increase the odds of the bad combination significantly by inbreeding. The majority of the offspring may still not have the unlucky combination, but may be much closer to it, and further line-breeding compounds the scenario.

If A is dominant over b, and dominant means dark hair with recessive meaning blond hair, then:
Gene = XX (can be AA, Ab, or bb)
Allele = A or b (in this case there are 2 alleles)
Trait = The expressed result of the gene. There are two outcomes here, AA and Ab, or bb. AA and Ab have the same expression, dark hair. Only bb expresses the recessive trait, blond hair.

Basically, whether its mice, rabbits, humans, or reptiles, the results of inbreeding mean more bad stuff is expressed. 
Another problem with line-breeding animals is we aren't usually aware of many of the negative results.
In humans, we quickly notice that inbred populations are more likely to exhibit mental disturbances, but other recessive traits that are more physical take more generations to notice. But when we line-breed animals, how difficult is it to notice mental disturbances? How do you tell your tortoise is a little "different"? You can't. Most of the negatives results of line-breeding are not immediately apparent, but they are there, and may result in reduced lifespan, poor health, impaired survival skills, and so on. These are not so easy to cull out, since they are hard to identify (is this snake suffering from genetic poor health or parasites?). Culling to eliminate expressing individuals is possible, but culling to eliminate a trait is very difficult, since many "normal" individuals in your breeding population are carriers for the recessive alleles that are expressed by the few. Many of the recessive negative traits aren't visible until after the individual is breeding, making culling expensive and time-consuming. Would you cull out all an animal's offspring when you find out later in its life that it died prematurely? Probably not (and chances are you've already sold them). Culling is usually applied only to deformed newborns/hatchlings, and rarely to other genetically negative traits, if for no other reason then they are hard to identify without expensive veterinary procedures.


Steve


----------



## Stephanie Logan (Nov 4, 2009)

egyptiandan said:


> Not sure if you can get a tortoise in another color Jacqui, there are though plenty of people that are breeding to enhance or intensify the colors they already have.
> Like Douglas breeding for Stars with more rays. I could see that getting to the point of an all yellow Star.
> Terry breeds for color in his Redfoots.
> There are now albino, hypomelanistic and leusistic tortoise out there, with people trying to breed those.
> ...



Yay Chaco's! Beautiful features, sweet personalities, and terribly underappreciated! Go Chaco's! Go Chaco's! Go Chaco's!


----------



## -EJ (Nov 8, 2009)

I could care less in the case of pets. I'd like to produce a Leopard x Sulcata. 

It's all about levels. If you're interested in pets... does it really matter.

If you're into the species in the hopes of contributing to repopulation... that's a different story. Many say this is impossible because biologists do not work with the private sector... wrong. If you have a species that is extremely limited... there are ways.

The point... distinguishing between pets and the rest.



Jacqui said:


> What do you feel about the future tortoises being breed not for colorings they naturally would have, but more eye pleasing ones? Or crossing different types together like Maps and Sliders? Would you like a Star, that is red, orange, or bright yellow with the dark black markings? How about a red Russian anybody?


----------



## darreinjhony (Nov 21, 2009)

Hi..
I have gone through the post and the information which you share is really good one...


----------



## -EJ (Nov 21, 2009)

Then how woud you explain 100% of single traits...Black, White, brown... in bunnies.

Genetic traits can definately build up as you suggest. When line breeding to offset the posibility of the bad genes being expressed breeders will out breed or find another line of a desired trait.



Pesky Fly said:


> I probably donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have any right to post this but as far as my genetics knowledge goes, genes (traits, alleles) cannot build up. Hence Douglas would be correct. As only Ã‚Â½ of an organisms genes come from one parent and Ã‚Â½ from another, the likely hood of it acquiring multiples of the same or similar line gene are slim to none. I breed mammals, rabbits to be exact and yes I have line bred to bring out traits which are desirable. The issue with line breeding is, it will bring out the good traits, but will also bring out the Ã¢â‚¬Å“badÃ¢â‚¬Â traits. So if you have a bunny with a slightly crooked tail, breed it to one of its offspring, you could end up with a noticeably crooked tail. I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know if the same applies to reptiles, but itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s my two cents.


----------

