inbreeding

[Ibleedcolors]

A dozen clutches of tragedies!?!? What you doing INBREEDING so much to give such profound personal "bad" experiences. Seems irresponsible after the first experience, IMO.

I believe Jim is sharing his stories as an experienced keeper. With so many years of chameleon keeping and as a top chameleon breeder, I doubt that he would be doing it with I'll intentions. There are times where situations just happen.

Let's not derail the subject. I would love to hear what other big breeders have to input on the subject.

 

[Chameleon Company]

A dozen clutches of tragedies!?!? What you doing INBREEDING so much to give such profound personal "bad" experiences. Seems irresponsible after the first experience, IMO.

Patrick. We are a large breeding operation. You have made an assumption that we deliberately "in-bred".

Assumptions are "irresponsible"

 

[Chameleon Company]

I believe Jim is sharing his stories as an experienced keeper. With so many years of chameleon keeping and as a top chameleon breeder, I doubt that he would be doing it with I'll intentions. There are times where situations just happen.

Let's not derail the subject. I would love to hear what other big breeders have to input on the subject.

Thank you

 

[AllFallDown]

The comments about future owners are key here, I think. Unless you got those Mitsios from somewhere with scrupulous breeding records, you don't know if there is already inbreeding in their genetic history. Captive-bred animals come from a limited gene pool, to further limit it by inbreeding unnecessarily is short-sighted negligent, to say the least.

'Taboo' is an unhelpful term in this instance, it only really applies to human incest. Humans (usually) knowingly commit incest, animals have their choice taken away from them as far as incest goes, in a natural situation it rarely happens. Even in critically endangered species inbreeding is a very very last resort.

Inbreeding may not cause any immediate problems, but there is absolutely no good reason to do it, and it certainly isn't good for chameleons as individuals or as a species.

Good points indeed!

 

[patrickfraser]

Whatever. I just think 12 times is a lot, especially as an experienced breeder. I might breed my "possible" siblings and maybe they'll hatch with wings.

 

[AllFallDown]

http://news.mongabay.com/2012/0322-madagascar_colonization.html

That's right people, inbreeding has formed entire populations. Also note that Borneo and Madagascar are some of the most heavy-hit deforestation zones on the planet - maybe it's a genetic trait originating from Borneo to destroy their own habitats?

Many of our panther chameleon coloring IMO is a result of inbreeding. Any time you have one species on an island (any panther locale with the word Nosy in it) is going to have some inbreeding. You'll notice that Nosy Mitsio and Nosy Be are also very mono-colored compared to mainland locales - a result of inbreeding, and colors dominating the gene pool? It needs some research for sure.

Negative defects ARE enhanced by inbreeding, so only strong genetic individuals can do it. Many ruling families throughout history organized marriages between cousins to enhance their strong ruling traits. We know that didn't turn out too well for many lineages, but mammals are much different than reptiles.

There are a lot of 'I think' and 'Probably not' when it comes to this argument, but very few facts. Inbreeding is frowned upon in our species, and really only in the last few centuries, and reptiles/amphibians are totally different than us mammales. Another example is sparrows. Every common sparrow you have ever seen in North America came from 11 pairs let loose over in New York some 100 years ago....I think they've done pretty well.





http://www.reptilechannel.com/lizards/breeding-lizards/inbreeding-reptiles.aspx

Never listen to people who are just making an opinion. Search around for facts, mix it with your opinion, and come to your own conclusion.

My opinion is that it's not beneficial unless you are breeding for a certain trait and have strong, pedigreed individuals (you know the family history a few generations, and know other people with siblings, and are confident there are no genetic issues with the line). Trait-breeding hasn't been well explored in chameleons, but as more people get into them I think we will see it happen.

Just think of how many crested geckos are around, and there were only a handful of originals that were used before exporting from New Caledonia was outlawed.

No dude, you are WAY over simplifying the genetics here!

You say that an entire population was formed around inbreeding. I do not have the facts to either verify or counter this. Personally, I would not be surprised, but a single article by no means constitutes proof, just evidence. IF this is true, it does NOT imply that incest is a wise practice in humans or reptiles and it does not negate any DOCUMENTED ill effects to a population's gene pool. Furthermore, that is a single case study. For every such case study you hand me I can hand you one back- the question is who's point is supported by the science and who's is simply a statistical anomaly or perhaps the result of statistical noise(IE a third factor involved).

"Never listen to people who are just making an opinion. Search around for facts, mix it with your opinion, and come to your own conclusion."

Wanna explain this comment please? Particularly could you explain how it applies to the discussion at hand and the arguments that have been presented? Particularly given the previous comment:

"There are a lot of 'I think' and 'Probably not' when it comes to this argument, but very few facts."

Correct me if I am wrong but I sense a connection between these and would appreciate it clarified.

I just want to make sure I completely understand the points you are trying to make about our arguments before I counter you

[Edit]
Oh, also, would you mind summarizing your main point so it is completely clear? I read a lot of anecdotes about populations in which inbreeding played an important role, I am not completely sure what point you are trying to make. Are you arguing that inbreeding is ok? Safe? Not going to end the world?

 

[AllFallDown]

Exactly. Typical results are lots of eggs that do not hatch, and those that do will give you weak animals with a host of permanent issues, to include a very short life.

I have seen this with about a dozen different clutches, different locales. Every clutch a tragedy.

The above two posts, while perhaps meaning well, are grossly misinformed when it comes to chameleons. What they say may work with ball pythons, but is a guaranteed disaster with chameleons.

Which two posts are you referring to?

I think your (and other's) points about the infertile inbred eggs is very interesting. Some species seem to handle inbreeding better than others. Many plants are like this. Some naturally self pollinate, others will just produce dud seeds or will not seed at all (I can think of at least one example of each). In the case of chameleons that seems very dramatic.

 

[DanSB]

'Taboo' is an unhelpful term in this instance, it only really applies to human incest. Humans (usually) knowingly commit incest, animals have their choice taken away from them as far as incest goes, in a natural situation it rarely happens. Even in critically endangered species inbreeding is a very very last resort.

Inbreeding may not cause any immediate problems, but there is absolutely no good reason to do it, and it certainly isn't good for chameleons as individuals or as a species.

Taboo is a very helpful term here as we humans are doing the breeding and it is ultimately to our taste that the breeding is happening. I believe the human concept of this taboos play a huge role in the way we breed and care for our animals.

Outside of anecdotal evidence I have seen no properly conducted scientific research it is actually a problem. (That doesn't discount it very well could be or that the evidence could exist)

Exactly. Typical results are lots of eggs that do not hatch, and those that do will give you weak animals with a host of permanent issues, to include a very short life.

I have seen this with about a dozen different clutches, different locales. Every clutch a tragedy.

The above two posts, while perhaps meaning well, are grossly misinformed when it comes to chameleons. What they say may work with ball pythons, but is a guaranteed disaster with chameleons.

I have the utmost respect for you and this is the best evidence I have heard so far that this might be a real problem with Chameleons. I think someone saying one or two clutches proved to be disasters says very little as there are so many variables.

But with 12 clutches it makes me seriously wonder about Chameleon reproductive biology. In order for an almost complete failure like this I would expect that one of the two parents is providing little to no genetic material or there are simply a huge amount of detrimental recessive traits in the Chameleon gene pool.

Frankly it would be more interesting if every inbred clutch failed because that would mean something quite extraordinary is at play here, PLUS it means no locale could have started with 2 similar individuals but instead had to be entire groups of sufficient size to preclude inbreeding!

Very interesting stuff, that is why these questions are fun!

A dozen clutches of tragedies!?!? What you doing INBREEDING so much to give such profound personal "bad" experiences. Seems irresponsible after the first experience, IMO.

Seriously you would stop after only one? That is kinda sad, the hallmark of nearly all successful people is not a lack of disaster but to not stop trying. The evidence and information here could improve breeding programs significantly.

 

[Chameleon Company]

Taboo is a very helpful term here as we humans are doing the breeding and it is ultimately to our taste that the breeding is happening. I believe the human concept of this taboos play a huge role in the way we breed and care for our animals.

Outside of anecdotal evidence I have seen no properly conducted scientific research it is actually a problem. (That doesn't discount it very well could be or that the evidence could exist)


I have the utmost respect for you and this is the best evidence I have heard so far that this might be a real problem with Chameleons. I think someone saying one or two clutches proved to be disasters says very little as there are so many variables.

But with 12 clutches it makes me seriously wonder about Chameleon reproductive biology. In order for an almost complete failure like this I would expect that one of the two parents is providing little to no genetic material or there are simply a huge amount of detrimental recessive traits in the Chameleon gene pool.

Frankly it would be more interesting if every inbred clutch failed because that would mean something quite extraordinary is at play here, PLUS it means no locale could have started with 2 similar individuals but instead had to be entire groups of sufficient size to preclude inbreeding!

Very interesting stuff, that is why these questions are fun!


Seriously you would stop after only one? That is kinda sad, the hallmark of nearly all successful people is not a lack of disaster but to not stop trying. The evidence and information here could improve breeding programs significantly.

Your post highlights one of the problems with chameleons, vs. for instance, mice.

A study with chameleons would be enormously time consuming, and expensive. I do not know who would pay for it, volunteer time or assets, etc. Successful production of non-related animals is difficult enough. That in itself is a huge incentive to not deviate from the tried-and-true.

What I do believe, and have shared for years, is that chameleons are of a higher order of complexity than such as ball pythons and bearded dragons. They are far smarter, and detailed.

And as you can see, almost everyone is an expert in Forums.

While all the inbreedings here were unintentional, 12 for 12 striking out was persuasive should I ever be asked for an opinion on it. Or in this case, volunteer one. Same answer either way.

 

[AllFallDown]

Taboo is a very helpful term here as we humans are doing the breeding and it is ultimately to our taste that the breeding is happening. I believe the human concept of this taboos play a huge role in the way we breed and care for our animals.

I'm kind of iffy on the use of the word taboo. Trillian makes a very good point that "taboo" tends to be a human thing but I have 2 thoughts on this that would support the use of the idea:
1) That taboo seems to have a biological basis. The degree to which that basis is consistent with the taboo itself is arguable but the taboo is in fact tied to the biology
2) In talking about future caretakers, taboo is very appropriate as that would be one consideration that a potential caretaker might be motivated by (aside from the genetic considerations), again though, in my mind the biology should be of primary consideration.

Outside of anecdotal evidence I have seen no properly conducted scientific research it is actually a problem. (That doesn't discount it very well could be or that the evidence could exist)

I am not a biologist so I don't want to argue this point too much for fear of venturing into territory too far outside of my educational background. I will say that it seems to me that depends on what you consider a problem. For instance, about 30% of Dalmations are born deaf because of a genetic defect in that population. This is known and documented. I personally would call that a problem.

 

[Trillian]

Taboo is a very helpful term here as we humans are doing the breeding and it is ultimately to our taste that the breeding is happening. I believe the human concept of this taboos play a huge role in the way we breed and care for our animals.

The word 'taboo' when applied to captive breeding of animals is unhelpful, it implies it is a moral issue, when that is not the case, it is a health issue, of both the immediate offspring resulting from a closely-related individuals breeding, and on the captive population of that species as a whole.

There is no good reason in breed from closely related individuals.

Studies have been done on the effects of inbreeding in reptiles and amphibians, a few have been collated here, though the book was published in 1993, so there may well be more recent studies or analyses available. The summary being that the differences between inbred species only vary in the rate at which the health of the offspring and viability of eggs declines with each successive sibling breeding.

 

[DanSB]

Your post highlights one of the problems with chameleons, vs. for instance, mice.

A study with chameleons would be enormously time consuming, and expensive. I do not know who would pay for it, volunteer time or assets, etc. Successful production of non-related animals is difficult enough. That in itself is a huge incentive to not deviate from the tried-and-true.

What I do believe, and have shared for years, is that chameleons are of a higher order of complexity than such as ball pythons and bearded dragons. They are far smarter, and detailed.

And as you can see, almost everyone is an expert in Forums.

While all the inbreedings here were unintentional, 12 for 12 striking out was persuasive should I ever be asked for an opinion on it. Or in this case, volunteer one. Same answer either way.

My wife tells me Chameleons are definitely aliens (Chameleons and mantids)

Ha this lends some credence to her belief!

I have a pretty good understanding of how genetics work and reproduction in general, granted most of what I studied relates to humans and other mammals as far as I know reproduction on earth and passing of genetic code should be similar in everything that reproduces sexually. The reason this is so interesting to me (as I pointed out in my first post I am only talking theory) is that this goes against my understanding of how genetic information is passed on.

I almost wonder if Chameleons evolved some sort of "Self Destruct" marker to keep an otherwise non-discriminating sexual breeder from inbreeding. Over time something like this would of course win out and it would favor chameleons who move furthest from their birth range.

I do appreciate your feedback as to me when someone like you says 12 failed I don't immediately wonder if it was a husbandry issue.

I'm kind of iffy on the use of the word taboo. Trillian makes a very good point that "taboo" tends to be a human thing but I have 2 thoughts on this that would support the use of the idea:
1) That taboo seems to have a biological basis. The degree to which that basis is consistent with the taboo itself is arguable but the taboo is in fact tied to the biology
2) In talking about future caretakers, taboo is very appropriate as that would be one consideration that a potential caretaker might be motivated by (aside from the genetic considerations), again though, in my mind the biology should be of primary consideration.



I am not a biologist so I don't want to argue this point too much for fear of venturing into territory too far outside of my educational background. I will say that it seems to me that depends on what you consider a problem. For instance, about 30% of Dalmations are born deaf because of a genetic defect in that population. This is known and documented. I personally would call that a problem.

I'm not disagreeing that over time inbreeding will be detrimental to a population. I only think it is odd that it could be so completely devestating with only a single generation

 

[AllFallDown]

The word 'taboo' when applied to captive breeding of animals is unhelpful, it implies it is a moral issue, when that is not the case, it is a health issue, of both the immediate offspring resulting from a closely-related individuals breeding, and on the captive population of that species as a whole.

There is no good reason in breed from closely related individuals.

Studies have been done on the effects of inbreeding in reptiles and amphibians, a few have been collated here, though the book was published in 1993, so there may well be more recent studies or analyses available. The summary being that the differences between inbred species only vary in the rate at which the health of the offspring and viability of eggs declines with each successive sibling breeding.

Ehhhh.....

Also good very points (I really enjoy reading your posts by the way). I am not sure I am willing to grant that there is NO good reason to inbreed with closely related individuals but I will grant that it seems plausible, I can think of some cases where benefits may occur- I am going to tread very very lightly there and leave that to the biologists.

Regarding the term 'taboo'. I feel I can see your point, but I am not sure I personally would call it a 'moral' term. If it was a 'moral' term I would 100% agree with you. I think of taboo as being more of a sociological term which observes a certain societal more. Specifically a more concerning some thing the society considers bad or forbidden for some reason. The reason for the "taboo" may very well be "moral" (in the case of incest in our society, I think morality definitely plays a role), but to me taboo itself is more general than that. I think this particular taboo can be understood independently of morality.

 

[AllFallDown]

I'm not disagreeing that over time inbreeding will be detrimental to a population. I only think it is odd that it could be so completely devestating with only a single generation

Agreed!
Two separate issues here IMO. Both related but the 'proximate' consequences are very interesting! I am curious as to the basis of this phenomena.

 

[DanSB]

The word 'taboo' when applied to captive breeding of animals is unhelpful, it implies it is a moral issue, when that is not the case, it is a health issue, of both the immediate offspring resulting from a closely-related individuals breeding, and on the captive population of that species as a whole.

There is no good reason in breed from closely related individuals.

Studies have been done on the effects of inbreeding in reptiles and amphibians, a few have been collated here, though the book was published in 1993, so there may well be more recent studies or analyses available. The summary being that the differences between inbred species only vary in the rate at which the health of the offspring and viability of eggs declines with each successive sibling breeding.

Ehhhh.....

Also good very points (I really enjoy reading your posts by the way). I am not sure I am willing to grant that there is NO good reason to inbreed with closely related individuals but I will grant that it seems plausible, I can think of some cases where benefits may occur- I am going to tread very very lightly there and leave that to the biologists.

Regarding the term 'taboo'. I feel I can see your point, but I am not sure I personally would call it a 'moral' term. If it was a 'moral' term I would 100% agree with you. I think of taboo as being more of a sociological term which observes a certain societal more. Specifically a more concerning some thing the society considers bad or forbidden for some reason. The reason for the "taboo" may very well be "moral" (in the case of incest in our society, I think morality definitely plays a role), but to me taboo itself is more general than that. I think this particular taboo can be understood independently of morality.

Technically a Taboo is a form of a custom and I'm not presently going to begin the debate of how a societies mores vs customs are interrelated and difficult to distinguish. (Too many years studying social anthropology left my brain broken)

The point I am trying to make is that when a person hears the term inbreeding they are immediately going to conjure up negative connotations due to our societies taboos. Because of this research could be skewed if it is even researched at all. Take case in point the previous post here by member Stinky.

Too often our scientific experimentation and lines of inquiry are influenced by our traditions and mores especially our taboos.

I can provide pictures of early archaeological finds where genitals were removed by archaeologists because it was distasteful. Or I can provide pictures of what is clearly a prehistoric sex toy (very clearly) which will be in a collection labelled as a ceremonial item.

The point being any research around our taboos has a good chance of being skewed. We are humans, we are doing the research, this is why it relates to us.

 

[Chameleon Company]

I do appreciate your feedback as to me when someone like you says 12 failed I don't immediately wonder if it was a husbandry issue.

Thank you. it most certainly is not husbandry

I'm not disagreeing that over time inbreeding will be detrimental to a population. I only think it is odd that it could be so completely devestating with only a single generation

I have made a small fortune selling chameleons to those who think that breeding is simple, and that they will easily make their own small fortunes quickly.

Well, its not, and they won't. These are a higher order animal. If nothing else, I tell folks that the ability to look in two directions at once, and give both simultaneous thought, is not a simple thing.

 

[Chameleon Company]

........... The point I am trying to make is that when a person hears the term inbreeding they are immediately going to conjure up negative connotations due to our societies taboos. Because of this research could be skewed if it is even researched at all. Take case in point the previous post here by member Stinky......

I am going to disagree with your assumption. It may apply to the general non-reptile public. But within the reptile hobby, line-breeding is the root of many reptile morphs. All of your ball python morphs. Albino burms. Corn snakes. Many geckos. Etc. In our larger reptile community, breeders and buyers, there are few negative connotations. We have 30 years of history that relied on line-breeding to bring big money into reptiles.

Chameleons are an exception. They are also quite unique from every other reptile.

 

[DanSB]

I am going to disagree with your assumption. It may apply to the general non-reptile public. But within the reptile hobby, line-breeding is the root of many reptile morphs. All of your ball python morphs. Albino burms. Corn snakes. Many geckos. Etc. In our larger reptile community, breeders and buyers, there are few negative connotations. We have 30 years of history that relied on line-breeding to bring big money into reptiles.

Chameleons are an exception. They are also quite unique from every other reptile.

Ha I would never disagree with you that Chameleons are special. I believe that is why so many of us here are drawn to them.

I'm also sure you're right that this particular taboo is not well represented in the world of professional reptile breeders, but I do think it would be prevalent for amateurs and people who are studying it without financial benefit. That is only a guess on my part and frankly it makes little difference. I only made it a portion of a point I was previously trying to make.

The fact of the matter is for some reason all evidence points towards Furcifur Pardalis (I know that is your specialty and ASSumed those are what you had 12 failures with) having near complete brood failure at F1 inbreeding!

I would be interested if this is unique to the species, to the Genus, or to the entire Family. Is it true of African and Madagascar Chameleons? Seychelles Chameleons?

My suspicion is that each locale, especially the smaller island ones begun with a much smaller breeding group. Could this be some sort of trait to keep inbreeding from becoming a problem that evolved over time? That would be a lucky mutation and would explain well why they are so well adapted for having so many unique morphs in such a small geographic area.

Please understand I am not questioning the veracity of what you are saying I am just very interested in this and think it is fascinating!

 

[sandrachameleon]

Since there is little benefit and significant risk, it seems a impractical (and perhaps stupid) thing to do IMHOpinion. Most reputable breeders seem to agree that inbreeding is problematic for chameleons, to a much greater degree than many other reptiles.

This sort of discussion has occured many times on the forum.
Here are a couple links to older threads essentially on the same topic in which there are some interesting posts:
https://www.chameleonforums.com/true-27168/
https://www.chameleonforums.com/intelligent-discussion-about-line-breeding-38030/
https://www.chameleonforums.com/wouldnt-mean-they-inbred-31618/
https://www.chameleonforums.com/chameleon-genetics-how-much-does-each-parent-contribute-81841/

 

[Chameleon Company]

Ha I would never disagree with you that Chameleons are special. I believe that is why so many of us here are drawn to them.

I'm also sure you're right that this particular taboo is not well represented in the world of professional reptile breeders, but I do think it would be prevalent for amateurs and people who are studying it without financial benefit. That is only a guess on my part and frankly it makes little difference. I only made it a portion of a point I was previously trying to make.

The fact of the matter is for some reason all evidence points towards Furcifur Pardalis (I know that is your specialty and ASSumed those are what you had 12 failures with) having near complete brood failure at F1 inbreeding!

I would be interested if this is unique to the species, to the Genus, or to the entire Family. Is it true of African and Madagascar Chameleons? Seychelles Chameleons?

My suspicion is that each locale, especially the smaller island ones begun with a much smaller breeding group. Could this be some sort of trait to keep inbreeding from becoming a problem that evolved over time? That would be a lucky mutation and would explain well why they are so well adapted for having so many unique morphs in such a small geographic area.

Please understand I am not questioning the veracity of what you are saying I am just very interested in this and think it is fascinating!

Since there is little benefit and significant risk, it seems a impractical (and perhaps stupid) thing to do IMHOpinion. Most reputable breeders seem to agree that inbreeding is problematic for chameleons, to a much greater degree than many other reptiles.

This sort of discussion has occured many times on the forum.
Here are a couple links to older threads essentially on the same topic in which there are some interesting posts:
https://www.chameleonforums.com/true-27168/
https://www.chameleonforums.com/intelligent-discussion-about-line-breeding-38030/
https://www.chameleonforums.com/wouldnt-mean-they-inbred-31618/
https://www.chameleonforums.com/chameleon-genetics-how-much-does-each-parent-contribute-81841/

Thanks for the doing the homework Sandra.

DanSB. For whatever reason, where chameleons spread to such as island locales, they did so in a way that they were able to survive with adequate genetic diversity. Like mammals, if I had to pick a parallel.

As Sandra noted, we are not going to get too much data on it. If a graduate student were to come to me with an "idea", I can almost guarantee that they would not have the funding needed for my guinea pigs.

Its a brick wall. That's pretty much end-of-story.