Is this true?

[crazydart]

Please understand that my response wasn't trying to be argumentative. I was just trying to correct you. You are the one that came in here making accusations about what others have said. You should always be prepared to back that up.

Well, personally I was not happy with your response at all. I had gone back and read the whole thread, and found many cases to support what I had said, but I dont feel it gives any value to this subject. This isnt about you or I being correct. It was about if you could inbreed, and we all know that you can. Is it good? Is it bad? Well, I think it should only be done in cases which you need to learn about genetics for scientific reasons... not for profit reasons.

You arnt going to teach me anything about what goes on in the reptile world, I am very sure I know about many of the good and bad pratices already. I have seen pictures that will make any reptile lover very sad. I am aware of many "morphs" created by inbreeding... I am also aware of many problems it creates causing the breeders to cull most or all of the babies. but who cares right? If you get 1 out of 1000 that has a cool new stripe down its back, you could make big $$$, right? I have bred ball pythons, dart frogs, chameleons, leopard geckos, and collard lizards. I have never found the need to line breed. The ball pythons I bred had the recessive trait for piebald. Pete Khal searched the world over to find other specimens to breed his pied to so he could prove the genetics. He could have taken the easy way out and just line bred. Now we all know the gene pool is small for this trait, only 3 original pied ball pythons exsisted. Now we have tens of thousands. I cant imagine how much worse the gene pool would have been if he had just line bred them.

 

[GooglezNvincent]

I have to ALWAYS repeat myself in this stand point, we need to stay away from "GOOD and BAD" this is the ultimate proof of opinion and is pointless. Now if we were to point out factual negative and positive aspect of inbreeding or line breeding that is different. we need to also take 2 instances. The line breeding aspect of just one generation, and then the inbreeding of multiple generation, like 5 generations down the line and what the offspring are like. We need to keep those 2 instances and thought processes separately to get a well rounded knowledge.

I frankly, by reading what people have stated and by researching, am not against line breeding within 2 generations. Beyond that any other line or inbreeding past 2 generations i think is detrimental to the species because there is no chance to evolve and also starts a dowhill slope to where negative aspects can start showing up. No proof here, sorry folks but those aspect include and are not limited to: sterility, health issues, loss of coloration, and deformaties.

 

[merumontanus]

I frankly, by reading what people have stated and by researching, am not against line breeding within 2 generations. Beyond that any other line or inbreeding past 2 generations i think is detrimental to the species because there is no chance to evolve and also starts a dowhill slope to where negative aspects can start showing up.

Uhh. What does evolution have anything to do with captive inbreeding, again? If I understand correctly, it's okay to inbreed up to F2, but after that, evolution is interrupted?

Fabián

 

[GooglezNvincent]

whether an animal is CB or WC it is evolving, everything is evolving. So if we disrupt it by line breeding 1 or 2 generations it is not long enough to impact the specimen in a negative way, it infact have more positives. But if we continue to inbred the animal is not evolving, getting new traits and having different DNA strands, and then begins the negatives and the down hill slope for it. Understand? lol it makes sense to me, but i dont wrod things right alot of the time, maybe some one can understand me and put it in different words for people to get it lol im terrible are wording things right.

 

[jojackson]

Vince, Individuals dont evolve anyway, just species. Any captive breeding, be inbreeding or otherwise, will produce traits both accidently and deliberately that would not occure (and be continued) naturally in wild populations, due to sheer numbers alone being bred.
That is, sheer numbers being bred means enough pairings for said traits to occure, as opposed to within a wild population.
This is understood. This does not effect in any way the species natural evolution and the results thereof.
If you release captive animals, bred and cross bred into the wild populations gene pool, you foul it, but evolution is not changed, just the genepool.
Evolution of species continues as always, its driven by the need to adapt.
Traits not beneficial in evolutionary terms, eg a one eyed cham, will soon by weeded out by natural selection as always.

What your saying is that messing up the genetics of a particular 'line' of chameleons is wrong or sad. I agree!
But remember these are captive animals, so as long as they stay captive, they cant affect the species 'wild' genetics.
I think you mean to say that evolution has produced stunning creatures that should be admired and respected for what they are, how they are.

 

[GooglezNvincent]

for the most part yeah that is what i am trying to say, good point that as long as they stay captive bred they wont effect the wild, we need to be responsible in that aspect and not let our CB out into the wild because it can cause problems, as seen in Florida

 

[Pure]

Well, personally I was not happy with your response at all. I had gone back and read the whole thread, and found many cases to support what I had said, but I dont feel it gives any value to this subject. This isnt about you or I being correct. It was about if you could inbreed, and we all know that you can. Is it good? Is it bad? Well, I think it should only be done in cases which you need to learn about genetics for scientific reasons... not for profit reasons.

You arnt going to teach me anything about what goes on in the reptile world, I am very sure I know about many of the good and bad pratices already. I have seen pictures that will make any reptile lover very sad. I am aware of many "morphs" created by inbreeding... I am also aware of many problems it creates causing the breeders to cull most or all of the babies. but who cares right? If you get 1 out of 1000 that has a cool new stripe down its back, you could make big $$$, right? I have bred ball pythons, dart frogs, chameleons, leopard geckos, and collard lizards. I have never found the need to line breed. The ball pythons I bred had the recessive trait for piebald. Pete Khal searched the world over to find other specimens to breed his pied to so he could prove the genetics. He could have taken the easy way out and just line bred. Now we all know the gene pool is small for this trait, only 3 original pied ball pythons exsisted. Now we have tens of thousands. I cant imagine how much worse the gene pool would have been if he had just line bred them.

I'm done being nice with you.

No need to star lying about anything when it's quit clear you are full of it, and haven't read squat or did and didn't like looking like a jacka$$

As for your experience with the subject at hand.. You are doing exactly what Jim did. Spout off about all this experience, yet didn't post one word in the direction of giving us any useful information. Your real name isn't Jim is it? You did seem a little too peeved about us questioning him (questioning him in your blind eye). Some one wanna run an IP check?


Is that nice enough for you? I wouldn't want to fracture your fragile ego. Just next time think before posting.

Trev, Just an FYI. Darwin points out the massive amount of inbreeding done in show pigeons to help make his case in "the theory of evolution". Just an interesting fact.

Curious, where did you read about only going to the second gen?

 

[DJnSoCal]

Ok I am a little late to this one, but as some people have asked for documented proof that this is bad I can point to some documented proof. I suggest all those who have not buy a copy of "The Panther Chameleon: Color Variation, Natural History, Conservation, and Captive Management" In his book he has a chapter called conservation, and a section called Farming and the Problem of Inbreeding Depression. This section has some very detailed info on this subject. I would type some of it out, but I am too lazy! It does go over the fact that zoos who strive to setup breeding programs have serious problems with this and have to setup exchange programs. It also talks about the fact that this is done with other reptiles to try to bring out traits.

Basically, to sum it up, its a big problem. Yes there is documented proof. In many differant species of reptiles and amphibians. If you REALLY want to know more take some time and do research. This may not be simple, you may have to get some contacts with zoos and universities that have programs which focus on these animals. Jim Flaherty perhaps lashed out rather quickly on this subject, but as with many reptile and amphibian "species communities" this is very common when this issue comes up and a long time breeder hears people carelessly saying "it seems like its harmless." If I am not mistaken Jim keeps and breeds more Chameleons per year than most of us will ever see in a lifetime.

Is this worth trying just to prove a point? Well, you might try, but most people, like Jim has pointed out, will not purchase inbred stock knowingly. The book I sighted has alot of scatered info about incompatible genetics, including the fact that some locales of panthers which when crossed the offspring are sterile. I dont know about you, but if I found out I had a sterile stud, I would be very upset!

Ben

I've been waiting to read the chapter you suggested out of that book... should be next week before I get a gander at it. If it has any specific studies I will be very happy. If it contains the same information JoJackson provided (which is similar to a lot of information out there) I'll be disappointed. It is interesting you mention they are line-breeding some reptiles to "bring out characteristics" and in the very next sentence say it is a very big problem. I don't understand. Does it have its place or not? Is it a useful tool or not? I've searched the web, read what I can, but I can't find any chameleon specific information where they do line-breeding studies for generations... know what I mean? "Jim" has yet to give us any information. I've been patiently waiting. I do want to learn... the more we know the better! Buying gravid females and selling the offspring... even I could do that! Oh wait, I digress...

Who said it was harmless?

Well, personally I was not happy with your response at all. I had gone back and read the whole thread, and found many cases to support what I had said, but I dont feel it gives any value to this subject. This isnt about you or I being correct. It was about if you could inbreed, and we all know that you can. Is it good? Is it bad? Well, I think it should only be done in cases which you need to learn about genetics for scientific reasons... not for profit reasons.

I think even now some chameleons are line-bred without knowledge... just the nature of the beast. I've never said I'd do it, but I don't think it should be a taboo subject and may have some merit depending upon ones reasons. Just keep an open mind... there are reasons for it... reasons against it. But, as you said, Pure said, and nearly everyone here said, it is most definitely possible. So talk about it... the positives and the negatives. But just don't throw out opinions with no substance to back it up. I appreciate the fact you referenced a book. I can't wait to read it. Right now there isn't a lot of chameleon specific information. We are forced to go with what we know from line breeding with various other species.

 

[GooglezNvincent]

Trev, Just an FYI. Darwin points out the massive amount of inbreeding done in show pigeons to help make his case in "the theory of evolution". Just an interesting fact.

Curious, where did you read about only going to the second gen?

First part about Darwin, is that agreeing or against my arguement, sorry im a little confused about that point.
Secondly about the 2nd generation i unfortunately cant remember where i read it, but it was in some biology book i had in high school. I could be wrong and totally off. Again most of all this is difference in opinion. Except for the flat out facts, which i am trying to get down to.

 

[tkilgour]

this is good stuff

 

[jojackson]

I really like how you just pick peoples posts apart.

I think what you meant to say is..... 'I really dont like how you exposed the major part of my post as almost incomprehensible nonsense without much meaning, thanks alot, now they know I have little idea what im talking about and cant express myself clearly or eloquently and make sense. I wish I hadnt tried to make you sound like an idiot."

Its a debate Mate, build a bridge....You know the saying
Say something sensible instead of trying to paint me a creationist fruitcake and perhaps Ill conceed your point if its valid . Dont choose to rubbish a persons post unless you can
clearly show it is rubbish, and never underestimate somebody you choose to dump on!
Know your opponent!
Happy Debating!

P.S. The parts of your post I didn't quote were not relevant at all so were digested and ignored. I wasnt cherry picking bad bits, there were no 'good bits'. Your saying veileds in Fla. are interesting, is neither here nor there and add nothing to the debate.
Tell us what exactly you think can be learned from studying an introduced pest population in Fla., apart from how they might adapt, and we can consider the validity of the statement as it relates to your apparent pro stance, and inbreeding.
cheers

 

[merumontanus]

First part about Darwin, is that agreeing or against my arguement, sorry im a little confused about that point.
Secondly about the 2nd generation i unfortunately cant remember where i read it, but it was in some biology book i had in high school. I could be wrong and totally off. Again most of all this is difference in opinion. Except for the flat out facts, which i am trying to get down to.

No, this is about a complete lack of understanding of the evolutionary process. There may, in fact, be a host of differing opinions, but not all opinions have the same value (though everyone has the right to express their opinion). Some opinions are incorrect-- others are not.

whether an animal is CB or WC it is evolving, everything is evolving. So if we disrupt it by line breeding 1 or 2 generations it is not long enough to impact the specimen in a negative way, it infact have more positives. But if we continue to inbred the animal is not evolving, getting new traits and having different DNA strands, and then begins the negatives and the down hill slope for it. Understand? lol it makes sense to me, but i dont wrod things right alot of the time, maybe some one can understand me and put it in different words for people to get it lol im terrible are wording things right.

And no, inbreeding does not halt the evolutionary process. In fact, inbreeding may actually drive the evolution of a species, over hundreds of thousands or millions of years. The problem lies not in that captive inbreeding will or will not have an effect on the survival or evolution of a species (it won't), but in the immediate effects of such reproductive strategy in the given captive population, such as the potential for decreased fertility and viability of the offspring, a risk that is well-known in other animals.

From "Contribution of Inbreeding to Extinction Risk in Threatened Species", Barry W. Brook et al.

Inbreeding reduces reproductive fitness in naturally outbreeding species... Genetic stochasticity encompasses inbreeding depression, loss of genetic diversity, and mutational accumulation (Frankham et al. 2002). Inbreeding is the most immediate and potentially damaging of these (Frankham 1995a). Essentially, all well-studied naturally outbreeding species show depressed reproductive fitness in inbred individuals; this phenomenon is known as inbreeding depression (Falconer and Mackay 1996, Lynch and Walsh 1998, Hedrick and Kalinowski 2000). This has been demonstrated in the laboratory (see Frankham 1995b), in zoos (Ralls et al. 1988), and in the wild (see Crnokrak and Roff 1999). Although some scientists have been skeptical about the occurrence of inbreeding depression in wild populations, compelling evidence for it now exists. Of 157 valid data sets across 34 taxa reviewed by Crnokrak and Roff (1999), 90% showed differences indicating that inbreeding was deleterious to reproductive fitness (Frankham 2000).

The negative effects of inbreeding depression (in the wild and captivity) are clear, but the question we are pondering deals with captive populations that will never, ever, have an impact on the genetic diversity (and therefore viability) of species in the wild. There exists the absurd notion among some in the herpetocultural community that everything we do (including the unnecessary and excessive collection of some species) is justifiable by the unrealistic desire to "save" a species through captive management of and reintroduction. Not only would this be way out of financial reach for most of us in the industry, but it is simply very difficult to do (near-impossible) in terms of ecology and genetics unless there is enough genetic diversity to replace, otherwise you end up with a new, genetically-compromised, population again.

If anyone is going to inbreed chameleons (or any other naturally outbreeding species), do so while accepting the risks, and don't try to confuse the rest of the readers by regurgitating non-sensical justifications based on evolutionary misconceptions. This is an important topic of discussion and I hope we leave out all personal attacks so the thread is not closed, but please avoid communicating your "opinion" if you are not clear of its premises.

Cheers,

Fabián

 

[jojackson]

but it is simply very difficult to do (near-impossible), unless there is enough genetic diversity to replace, otherwise you end up with a new, genetically-compromised, population again.

Indeed, not to mention major issues with the relocation/reintegration of said captive bred animals into the wild, along with the fact that in many cases the habitat no longer exist, no longer is suitable for a variety of reasons.
That said I do applaud such efforts wherein they have/can be successful, and I beleive the inbreeding depression issue is one taken seriously and great efforts made to ensure where possible, animals taken for CB programs are not related and genetically 'compatible'
to whatever extent is possible.
For the home or commercial breeder though, nothing of the sort is generally acheived (*with exceptions) since for the most part, they simply make the given species abundant in captivity/pet trade only, which is not in itself a bad thing (less taken from the wild is the aim I beleive), but inbreeding and the creation of 'morphs' that are not genetically 'sound' is not really helping the species et al.

* http://www.southernxreptiles.com/Home Page/SaveMaryRiver.htm

 

[merumontanus]

Indeed, not to mention major issues with the relocation/reintegration of said captive bred animals into the wild, along with the fact that in many cases the habitat no longer exist, no longer is suitable for a variety of reasons.
That said I do applaud such efforts wherein they have/can be successful, and I beleive the inbreeding depression issue is one taken seriously and great efforts made to ensure where possible, animals taken for CB programs are not related and genetically 'compatible'
to whatever extent is possible.
For the home or commercial breeder though, nothing of the sort is generally acheived (*with exceptions) since for the most part, they simply make the given species abundant in captivity/pet trade only, which is not in itself a bad thing (less taken from the wild is the aim I beleive), but inbreeding and the creation of 'morphs' that are not genetically 'sound' is not really helping the species et al.

* http://www.southernxreptiles.com/Home Page/SaveMaryRiver.htm

I completely agree with you-- there are many successful head-start and reintroduction programs in existence, but none are attempted without the huge financial contribution from grants and/or private individuals. It is expensive, time consuming, and in the end, is done with the understanding that the population or species in question will be somewhat compromised genetically, but for these species it is a question of that, or nothing. Take, for example, the Anegada iguana (Cyclura pinguis), a species with fewer than 300 individuals left in the wild, and one receiving multi-international emergency support through research, habitat preservation, captive propagation and reintroduction.

What I mean to say is that we should not try to justify commercial (or private) inbreeding of species (for profit or personal pleasure) with the excuse that it's for the benefit of a species. It's an insult to the serious and hard work of those involved in real conservation.

I absolutely concur on your thoughts regarding morphs as a significant replacement of wild collection. I happen to enjoy studying the species as they have come to be, but for the general person looking for a pet, morphs are more than sufficient. Of course, one gets into issues of inbreeding again, viability, and the fact that it's difficult to control the genetic pollution of such method, but that's for another thread.

Fabián

 

[jojackson]

Good example, The Blue Iguana Cyclura lewisi is similary endangered and a captive breeding program underway, with some success so far!

As of April 2007, after another large-scale release, there are 299 Blue Iguanas living in the wild, with hundreds more being raised in captivity on Grand Cayman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Iguana

http://www.blueiguana.ky/

Im not sure how they went about the initial (or ongoing?) selection for breeding pairs from the last of the wild population, but you can be sure that if was possible to find animals with genetic varience, then they were tested rigorously in order to get the most 'stable' possible genetic pairings, in order to start with the most robust stock possible.
Given the number the numbers involved were so small, you can only speculate, but they would have avoided if possible animals found too genetically similar (aka likely siblings or sibling/parent).

Who knows how long before the re-built populations become big enough (and geographically diverse enough within their climate/range) to begin to diversify and strengthen the genepool once more. Quite a few generations I expect.
So quickly we destroy and so slowly nature recovers.

 

[chamelisa]

What I mean to say is that we should not try to justify commercial (or private) inbreeding of species (for profit or personal pleasure) with the excuse that it's for the benefit of a species. It's an insult to the serious and hard work of those involved in real conservation.

So you think I shouldn't do this? From my previous post...

"But aside from that, what about breeding to sustain a species? I am not talking about calyptratus or pardalis.

Would it be unacceptable if I bred clutch mates of the wiedersheimi wiedersheimi to sustain the species in my collection? Or would it be a complete disappointment and possibly too much of a risk on the life of the only female wieder wieder I have."

I understand what you're saying. I am only sustaining this species in my collection. That is what I intended by my statement above. So you're saying I just shouldn't even try. Correct?

 

[jojackson]

Lisa, Is the species you mention really difficult or expensive to aquire or is mortality among wc the issue?

Would it be unacceptable if I bred clutch mates of the wiedersheimi wiedersheimi to sustain the species in my collection?

Im assuming the species is quite rare in captivity? Is it not possible to aquire another/more females from somebody who has them?
trade for breeding , or breeding loan ? Creation of a network of private keepers of the species for that purpous might atleast be a good start toward a diverse (as possible) captive gene pool? This way widdershamii fans (I know spelling but..) can not only sustain their collection but maintain robust stock aswell. These animals wont likely ever be repopulating wild reserves.
But if you do line breed your animals, selectively create oddities, morphs etc are they still widdershamis? Isnt their uniqueness part of the attraction?

what is the collection ettiquett involved? do you know? I mean as far as diversity goes, are they endemic to a tiny isolated area?
do importers have a process for catching the healthiest specimens? do they hope atleast to obtain specimans not likely to be related?

 

[chamelisa]

Lisa, Is the species you mention really difficult or expensive to aquire or is mortality among wc the issue?

Im assuming the species is quite rare in captivity? Is it not possible to aquire another/more females from somebody who has them?
trade for breeding , or breeding loan ? Creation of a network of private keepers of the species for that purpous might atleast be a good start toward a diverse captive gene pool?

what is the collection ettiquett involved? do you know? I mean as far as diversity goes, are they endemic to a tiny isolated area?
do importers have a process for catching the healthiest specimens? do they hope atleast to obtain specimans not likely to be related?

Yes, they seem to be rare in captivity. The WCs are difficult to acclimate but I have been buying WCs for years in hopes of breeding them. The females will lay their eggs but often they don't survive to lay a second clutch. Sometimes they do, but the viability of the eggs diminishes. I know of no one working with the species who is willing to trade bloodlines but I am open to the idea. No one has contacted me.

I have taken Wieder wieders to F2 but the babies did not live long. The CH wieder wieders I have are now adults. But without WCs I cannot breed them.

I have F1s of perreti and a number of clutches. But babies are difficult to rear and often extremely sensitive to the environment. So I have just a couple of babies out of a clutch of 7.

We have not seen any wieder wieders come in for at least a year, perhaps almost 2. Without checking my records, I am guessing closer to 2 years.

Regarding the import practices, I am unaware.

 

[jojackson]

Sounds like if you could establish communications with others keeping them and share data relating to breeding teckniques, incubation and post hatch raising, your success and success of others, could increase exponentially. Early days huh!
This very forum should be a great place to get started, but im sure with the rareity of the speciers in captivity, it might pay to visit other related places online and ask about?
Maybe the folk you got yours from could give you some leads towards finding other fans of the species.?

 

[merumontanus]

So you think I shouldn't do this? From my previous post...

"But aside from that, what about breeding to sustain a species? I am not talking about calyptratus or pardalis.

Would it be unacceptable if I bred clutch mates of the wiedersheimi wiedersheimi to sustain the species in my collection? Or would it be a complete disappointment and possibly too much of a risk on the life of the only female wieder wieder I have."

I understand what you're saying. I am only sustaining this species in my collection. That is what I intended by my statement above. So you're saying I just shouldn't even try. Correct?

Hi Elisa,

No, what I am saying is that, in order to engage in inbreeding, one should always recognize the risks of potential decreased viability, fertility, and overall genetic strength. What prompted my previous statements was the absurd justification of captive inbreeding as its having something to do with the evolution of a species. If the only way to sustain a captive population is through inbreeding, then that's a choice one needs to make while fully understanding the potential negative consequences of it. I personally would not recommend such a practice because, if the ultimate goal is to establish a healthy and viable population of a given species in captivity, inbreeding defeats the purpose of the goal to begin with-- leaving you with potentially-compromised founding stock.

At some point, one must weigh the potential outcome of inbreeding with those of ceasing to keep a difficult species in captivity (see the case study of Furcifer labordi)-- and that is a decision you must make, not me.

I hope you are well,

Fabián