On Tue, 4 Jan 2000, Ray Audette wrote:

 >
> > Note that the recent research with foxes, which we discussed last
> > year, showed that domesticated foxes could be bred in a
> > relatively short time *with no stresses whatsoever*, just careful
> > selection.
>
> A Siberian Fur Farm Collective (where these experiments were done) is a very
> stressful place for foxes.  Imagine the most overcrowded puppy mill you've
> ever seen multiplied by about 100.  These animals are also fed the worst
> food you can feed a fox and still expect it to live.  Crossbreeding would
> also lead to genetic stress similar to that found in a genetically
> constricted animal population trapped in a geographical "bottleneck".

I'm sorry Ray, but you'll need to be more careful with your terms
here, or else what you're saying is close to meaningless.  What
*exactly* do you mean by "stress" -- uncomfortable living
conditions, bad food, crossbreeding -- all of the above?
If so, are you then claiming that these conditions *cause
mutations*, and in particular the alleged "common mutation" that
results in neoteny?  This appears to be what you are claiming,
but it's hard to be sure.  In particular, what does "genetic
stress" mean?

> This environment would also be very stressful to those not being selected
> for breeding as they would be made into coats upon maturity.  Just as in
> Nature there would have to be considerable stress on "normal" animals to
> give neotinized ones an advantage.

The point is that the environment is the *same* for those not
selected for breeding for purposes of this experiment.  The
unselected foxes were not prevented from mating.  To be sure, the
experimenters created artificial selection pressure, but that has
nothing in particular to do with mutations.  So let me repeat my
first question: To your knowledge, has anyone yet associated
neoteny or domestication with a particular mutation?

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]