View Single Post
Old 12-09-03, 05:37 PM   #4 (permalink)
Former Moderator no longer active
Join Date: Feb-2002
Location: Christchurch
Posts: 10,251
People are always quick to jump to the conclusion that inbreeding is the cause of heath problems and deformaties. I would be more inclined to lean towards husbandry than I would to inbreeding. In captivity everything is changed. Different bacterial exposure, reduced exposure to parasites as well as no natural parasite control factors, reduced excercise, as well as no matter how hard we try, we can never come close to giving them the variety they feed on in the wild (with a few exceptions).
In the wild inbreeding is very natural. Adding new blood is actually more of a foreign incident. Especially with all the insular species. Locality specific animals are loaclity specific for a reason. They are all bred together and have done so for ions. As mentioned above, inbreeding has brought them to the level they stand at today.
For reptiles (ie-corns) that have a lot of morphs, they do seem to have a lot more abnormalities and the like. People often attribute this to inbreeding. However does anyone stop to think that perhaps these morph animals are genetically weak in the first place? Most morphs do not last more than a heartbeat in the wild. It is considered a defect.
For animals (ie- beardies) that started off with a relatively small population and have had little-to-no new blood added, abnormalities may also be quite high. Has anyone given any thought to the fact that since survival of the fittest has been taken away, many of the breeding specimens were not prime examples and combined with the small foundation population, increases the effect of poor blood.
Everyone is so quick to point the finger at inbreeding, but IMHO, there are a gazillion other possibilities that are being overlooked.
Linds is offline