Question: Is this a Dwarf Axolotl??

[willowcat]

Hello friend Azhael,
I want to ask you some questions. I do NOT want to argue. I do NOT want to arm wrestle with our brains. You would win.
I want to ask questions, so that I may learn. I have two dwarfs. I have been searching for information on the pros and cons, "IF" I breed. I am not eager to breed unless I am comfortable that this animal or any other animal is not harmed or uncomfortable in their life. I have asked several people lately and can't seem to find solid answers. I want you to read what I found.
I will cut and paste.-------The concept of phenotypic plasticity describes the degree to which an organism's phenotype is determined by its genotype. A high level of plasticity means that environmental factors have a strong influence on the particular phenotype that develops. If there is little plasticity, the phenotype of an organism can be reliably predicted from knowledge of the genotype, regardless of environmental peculiarities during development. An example of high plasticity can be observed in larval newts1: when these larvae sense the presence of predators such as dragonflies, they develop larger heads and tails relative to their body size and display darker pigmentation. Larvae with these traits have a higher chance of survival when exposed to the predators, but grow more slowly than other phenotypes.

Now, re-read the last sentence. I read it as good thing?

Cut and paste #2-----In contrast to phenotypic plasticity, the concept of genetic canalization addresses the extent to which an organism's phenotype allows conclusions about its genotype. A phenotype is said to be canalized if mutations (changes in the genome) do not noticeably affect the physical properties of the organism. This means that a canalized phenotype may form from a large variety of different genotypes, in which case it is not possible to exactly predict the genotype from knowledge of the phenotype (i.e. the genotype-phenotype map is not invertible). If canalization is not present, small changes in the genome have an immediate effect on the phenotype that develops.
Re-read the second sentence. The organism that we are discussing, (Axolotl) DOES noticeably show different physical properties. Canalization---Are we sure that it is present? Would we only know this if they were reproduced and the results would be more Dwarfs? Because the 3'rd sentence states that a "canalized phenotype may form from a large variety of different genotypes, in which case it is not possible to exactly predict the genotype from knowledge of the phenotype.-----not invertible. So my thinking is, that no one knows, because no one has tried to reproduce them, hence...no dwarf offspring. Correct? Now, besides the visual difference. Is there any way of knowing if the animal is uncomfortable? It looks different to us. But, is it different? Or has the animal canalized? If it has canalized then the animal has "robustness" in their development, compared to normal Axies, due to adverse circumstances. (adverse circumstances) hmm.......And, IF this is the case, that means our little pugs are more highly specialized in development than what we think,....or should I say, what we see.... .
Trace:dizzy:

 

[Azhael]

This can´t be likened to phenotypic plasticity. First of all there is every indication that the trait is in all likelihood genetic, plus phenotypic plasticity is a phenomenon that allows for adaptation, but what would these dwarf axolotl be adapted to?
These animals are clearly deformed, this isn´t a variation in normal development, it´s pathologic development.
A significant difference is that the kind of plasticity that you are suggesting appears secondarily after specific environmental triggers appear (environmental factors cause the release of hormones which activate genes that eventually produce changes in phenotype). These dwarves however don´t start as typical, their phenotype is congenital.

I´m not entirely sure why calanization would be relevant, as you say it´s obvious the animals don´t display a typical phenotype so i don´t see what the point is.
It is not necessary to predict the genetics of the animal and i made no attempt to . It may not even be relevant since the dwarves might be esterile for all i know. My point was that i find it surreal that someone could find the phenotype desirable on the grounds that it is "omg so cuuuute". This is disgusting to me regardless of wether these animals can actually reproduce.
The animal has not canalyzed. Canalyzation demands the conservation of the same general phenotype. This isn´t it.
As for wether the animal is uncomfortable...how would you determine this and why would this be the only significant factor? No axolotl is ever going to come up to the surface and say "pssst....i´m not feeling quite right" and the usual behaviours that we use to identify stress may not apply to all causes of distress. Furthermore, an animal with severe developmental problems, let´s say, no legs, no eyes and a kinked spine, may not show any recognizable signs of suffering but does that mean the animal is healthy and that its condition is desirable?. I don´t claim that this condition causes the animal pain. I claim that it is a developmental disorder and that to find it desirable to the point of wanting to breed FOR it over a healthy, typical phenotype because its shortness is superficially perceived to be cute is really kind of sick. Would anyone say the same about a human with Freeman-Sheldon syndrome? Why is that not desirable and cute? After all it doesn´t necessarily affect lifespan and as far as i know most individuals are not severely impaired or suffer physically as a result (if i´m mistaken i apologize), so would anyone make the conscious, deliberate choice to have children with this syndrome, given the choice between it and a typical phenotype?