|
I gotta say, I'm inclined to agree with the dissenters on this one.
If the mutation in leg length was naturally-occurring in some feral colonies, it's very possible that it's a selected adaptation rather than a deformity. I would be interested to know what kind of parasite load was associated with the animals at the time, because that's usually a good predictor or whether or not the alterations in the genetic line were 'naturally occurring' as a defensive measure or were, in fact, some congenital deformity. Regardless, if the article posted is to be believed (and i see little reason to doubt it but i'm interested in doing some research on it), there was a reason for the mutation to appear, and it allowed for adaptations that would be better understood if the environment, parasite load, and competing predators in the area were looked at more directly.
Either way, breeding these animals doesn't seem much different to me than stylizing the Siamese to the point where the 'Moderns' are.
I will offer up a truly horrifying example of what I feel is dead wrong, though. The one that really got me? And I won't post a link because this was genuinely sick-- what got me was the 'twisty cats.' Do not look it up on google if you're prone to rage attacks or think you might fly into one. But that, to me, is an example of breeding in a *TRUE*, definable deformity that really, no one should ever have done in the first place.
Until more research is done on why the stubby-legged phenomena occurred in the first place, especially in a wild population, I'll withhold judgment on the Munchkins and this 'new breed.' It's not aesthetically pleasing but then, I'm one of those people that wouldn't be caught dead with a Persian for a pet, so...
|
Login
Register
FAQ
