A lack of pigment in a captive animal does not put the animal at a disadvantage. They are living in a glass box and most people don't have herons and storks living in their homes to have to worry about them eating the lighter animals because they are more easily seen. All axolotls in captivity are inbred, I don't care if they're brown, pink or purple, it's a fact. Dogs and axolotls are totally different. Inbreeding has a greater impact on mammals, and dogs have been selectively bred much more than axolotls.
The lack of pigment itself may or may not have negative consequences for the individual (some mutations that involve loss of pigments do since melanins are involved in the development of the nervous system) but that doesn´t address other unseen mutations associated with the gene, or how the current breeding practices diminish variation, fix deleterious mutations into the gene pool and promotes practices like cosmetic selection, inbreeding, etc.
Just because there are no predators in captivity it doesn´t mean that forgetting about fitness doesn´t have consequences. In fact, it´s the problem i addressed earlier that precisely because captivity allows for easy living, deleterious mutations can survive in the gene pool because they are largely unnoticed. In other words, if you are in captivity you can let yourself go, grow slow and overfed, loose some skills and even thrive despite crippling deformities or other issues. This will eventually present a bill, though.
Yes, all captive axolotls are inbred. What matters is the rate of inbreeding and the loss of genetic variation, and in that respect, the massive production of aberrants makes extra demands that increase the rate.
Dogs are indeed a much older lineage than domestic axolotls, but the principles are exactly the same even if we allow for reduced impact of inbreeding in caudates. The difference is time, but the mechanism and the results follow the same pattern. Given enough time, there could be a pug axolotl.
You're right, they're not colorful dolls, they're colorful amphibians that we display as decoration. What else are people keeping them for? I'm sure most members of this forum don't raise them for food. The purpose of any organism kept in a home aquarium is generally for display. They're not going to be living in the wild, they're born, raised and die in a glass box, end of story.
Ok, so what if they are kept for display as decorations? The responsability towards a living creature remains all the same. Even if it´s just for display, you still have the moral responsability to feed it, clean it, house it properly, and just generally guarantee its welfare. This includes breeding practices because they are directly involved in the welfare of future generations. Breeding practices are a logical extension of our duties towards the living creatures we keep under our care. Sadly, this seems to be almost nonexistant, and the consequences are there to be seen with any domestic animal.
I am not one of the "many" who have not heard of the variety of lethal genes that some axolotls carry. It's true that they are originally from lab lineages, and apparently have stayed that way for the most part. I've never seen anyone offer pinhead, fluid imbalance or cardiac arrest axolotls for sale anywhere, have you? Lethal genes are, as the name implies, lethal, and are only desireable to the people using the animals for research purposes. Those keeping axolotls as pets or a hobby generally tend to like their animals to live.
Which is what i said, that these mutations have been filtrated to the commercial populations and are largely unnoticed by anyone (which is why people don´t advertise for defective axolotls, they just don´t know it´s what they have). People tend to like their animals to live, but if their animals are carriers of lethal genes and 50% of the offspring dies, people don´t notice.
My original point is that these mutations are highly undesirable for everybody and that it is pointless to produce them, but yet, it happens, which showcases that the emphasis is put solely on production and commercial value and not one bit on fitness.
I'm not sure where you read/heard that eyeless axolotls are usually linked to unusual coloration, that is simply not true. Eyeless is a mutant gene that can be expressed by any color morph and it is rather uncommon in the pet trade because, as you said, the eyeless animals are usually sterile.
I think it was in a post in these forums, someone mentioned that the pressence of the mutation in combination with other mutations, produced unnusual patterns. There was a picture where this could be seen. Regardless, they exist, and even if in very small numbers, they are produced. It´s lucky they are sterile because you could bet people would be breeding them otherwise.
It doesn't matter which color morph anyone produces, there is no way to avoid inbreeding with axolotls. The captive population started with very few animals and has grown to many animals. Even if you "out breed" wild types they will still be inbred until someone brings in animals from wild stock, and even then they'd probably be inbred.
Yes, and that´s precisely why it is important to select for fitness. We have a poor gene pool to begin with, we should try to pick those individuals that are less affected by the negative consequences of such limitations. We should not further reduce the genetic variation in the population by selecting and fixing pointless or deleterious mutations and fomenting further inbreeding.
What are they if they should no longer be confused with A.mexicanum? When were they reclassified?
They don´t have to be. They are a domestic population, and that´s all you can say so far. They contain a genetic introgression from A.tigrinum which does not exist (to my knowledge) in wild axolotls, they are reproductively isolated and they are being subjected to intense domestication. That´s good enough to separate the two populations as distinct entities. They are clearly separated and could be genetically recognized as distinct to whatever degree.
Congratulations, you just called almost every axolotl breeder on the forum an insane, immoral, psychopath!
I don´t believe i did. That is unless everybody is directly involved in the activities i described and even then i didn´t say they were insane and psychopathic, i said their actions are inmoral (which they are) and that the lack of empathy is seriously worrying and reminiscent of when a human fails to feel empathy for other humans, which is called a psychopath. In this case, we could call it speciesism i suposse.
I don´t feel bad for telling off someone if what they are doing is demonstrably wrong, which is not the same as saying i think they are monsters or evil people.
Some people desire a white animal and that's fine. As I said before, they are in captivity and need not worry about predators finding them. No one is paying great amounts of money for an albino axolotl, most people charge the same no matter which color morph.
Yeah, that would be fine as long as in order to get that white animals you don´t have to pay any consequences. Your desire for a particular thing, in this case a white animal, should not supersede the rights of the animal. In reality, the reason why the animal is white is not necessarily inocuous, and people don´t care.
. My first rat snake was a BEL Texas Rat snake. When I bought her, she was flawless, gorgeous, and was missing the bug eyes. I wasnt even aware of that issue being so common at the time. Now I see it everywhere in that particular morph of that species. Bug eyed goldfish make me sad too. I loathe that people do this to dogs like pugs, because we are looking into getting a small dog, and I've been talking to Pug owners, and I havent met ONE who's pugs eyes havent FALLEN OUT at least once!