#color morphs

So I can't speak for the zoo, obviously, but I can tell you what I think the general thought process would be.

My guess is that's not a decision that they'd make for years yet, because she's quite a ways away from sexual maturity. Observing her while she grows up will help them determine if the mutation seems to effect her health. If it does, it would be reasonable not to let her reproduce.

If she seems to be healthy, there's a couple different ways to look at it. Color mutations on their own aren't a reason not to breed an animal, if they're healthy and their genetics are important to the population. It becomes an issue when you're over-breeding or in-breeding to increase a specific mutation in your population. That's not actually as common as you'd think these days, because it so immediately gets public backlash. The zoo is getting a ton of publicity over her birth, but it means there will be equally as much scrutiny of any potential breeding.

It's also worth keeping in mind that she may not stay at that zoo, as breeding facilities with smaller habitats often transfer their calves somewhere else when they're reaching maturity. (Although I think in this case, they're more likely to keep her at home, because she's such a good draw for the public). If she moved somewhere, it's possible her original zoo might not get to make the call about if she breeds there.

Okay, so SO! I am absolutely obsessed with genetics and color morphs. I read about them all the time when I have downtime. And I love the idea of figuring out Pokémon genetics, or at least how I’d do them.

Seeing pictures of color morphs like melanism, albinism, piebaldism, etc. get me so excited. Especially if you get into less talked about stuff like xanthochromism or isabellinism.

I will literally chat your ear off over things like the differences between albinism, amelanism, leucism, and isabellinism, or how pseudomelanism works. And do NOT get me started on white patching, dilution genes, or stuff like fur length and texture genes.

There’s an interesting phenomenon that occurs with people who hold anti-exotic pet sentiment, and that is their tendency to have a negative reaction to animals being kept as pets that has little or nothing to do with their perception of how unsuitable they are for captivity, but rather they just don’t like that your pet is not commonly owned.

It is a mentality I’m going to call the ‘Parrot Paradox’—due to one of the most common examples of this. Many parrot species are considered to be some of the most ‘intelligent’ non-human animals in the world, with cognition that is often compared to that of human toddlers (whether it is true or not). This is also true of monkeys, whose owners are often heavily criticized in the mainstream for keeping such ‘complex’ and ‘intelligent’ animals captive.

Despite their supposed complexity, parrots are also extremely common for an exotic pet and enjoy some level of mainstream acceptance. We even have a ‘traditional parrot name’—Polly—the equivalent of Fido or Spot for dogs. Generally it is only the more radical anti-pet people who question hookbills being kept as pets.

Yet, show the average person a pet toucan, which is arguably less ‘complex’, and you will notice that people are more likely to object to that being kept as a pet because it seems more ‘exotic’. Toucans are uncommon pets and have different needs than parrots, but there is no evidence whatsoever that they do worse in captivity than parrots—in fact some species might be even less demanding.

Melissa hits the nail on the head, as usual. I’ve been saying this for years, but not so detailed, or perhaps so eloquently.

It’s the old, tired “you must be like everyone else, you must conform to the herd”-mentality.

I can’t speak for the rest of the world, but in my ~14 years on the international/American-based internet, and growing up in Scandinavia, I would say this attitude is extremely strong in Sweden and Norway. (Just see what I have written previously on this blog regarding Norwegian laws on exotics.)

For example (we don’t even have to go to exotics), a Swedish dog forum, some ten years ago. People were debating Czechoslovakian wolfdogs, with a lot of loud voices proclaiming we must not have these dogs in Sweden, because... because!!!

An owner of a Pražský Krysařík, a small, Chihuahua-looking dog from Czechia, commented in sympathy with the wolfdog owners, with (paraphrasing) “They do the same thing with us, and our dogs don’t even look like wolves.”

And they did. People were furious because they could not understand why these owners of the PK couldn’t just have Chihuahuas, like “normal” people! (They of course wouldn’t put it that bluntly, but it was the only “logic” to their fury.)

“WHY do you have to import this rare, tiny dog that no one ever heard of? We ALREADY HAVE tiny dogs here that could suit you!” (Funnily, Chihuahuas, being from Mexico, are of course much more “exotic” than a Czech Pražský Krysařík, but the former is commonly seen, not the latter.)

Another example of this are color mutations, and the attitude here is by no means restricted to Scandinavia.

Color mutations in common exotics, like budgies, cockatiels, lovebirds, leopard geckos and corn snakes, are taken in stride. They’re so common, the wild form might almost be a rare sight, and I’ve never seen anyone criticizing the breeding of these animals.

But color mutations of large parrots, iguanas or Boa constrictors - now there’s where the line is drawn! Now you are “playing God” and “breeding unnatural freaks”.

I swear, I see this every time.

Just... let people be.

A suspected case of “fever coat” in a young barn cat. This kitten will likely turn all black as it ages. @catcolors do you know much about this?