Inbreeding

[CJSTorts]

Well after getting our leopard geckos, I of course joined a leopard gecko forum. I have been looking and reading through every part of the forum. In the breeding section is where I start to have problems. Everyone on the forum rants and raves about not breeding your geckos if you do not know the genetics of your gecko. I get that, they could be carriers for something you don't want to pass on to future generations. This does not seem to be the main concern though. The main concern with the genetics seems to be "keeping the morphs pure". They don't want people to start breeding and creating "mutts", they want pure morphs. To the point that they advocate "line breeding", which is breeding parent to offspring and sibling to sibling in order to get a more intense, "purer" color. I have always been taught this is inbreeding and a detriment to any species. I am all for knowing your animals before you breed, so you don't pass down something detrimental to the offspring. In the leopard gecko community the main concern seems to be morphs. I am all for breeding and finding new colors and morphs but not at the detriment of the species genetic pool. One example of the enigma gene. "Since the Enigmas were first created there has always been talk of genetic or neurological issues with them. Some of the symptoms described by Enigma owners include spinning in circles, extreme light sensitivity, tendency to be easily stressed, and lack of eating." (http://www.leopardgeckowiki.com/index.php?title=Enigma) People still breed for this gene in order to get the brighter colors and patterns this gene produces, knowing the harm it can cause. When I breed animals I breed for healthy animals that help to better the genetic pool, not deteriorate it for the sake of pretty colors. What are your thoughts on this?

 

[CourtneyAndCarl]

Line breeding isn't an issue at all as long as the person doing it knows the exact genetics of their breeding stock. This goes with any species, from leopard geckos to dogs

The best way to know the true quality of your breeding stock is to breed your best male to your best female, and they are more often than not brother/sister, uncle/niece, and occasionally even father/daughter.

---

that being said, I have never been one that advocates breeding for color. Health and ability should be the main concern.

 

[ascott]

http://www.1st-art-gallery.com/thumbnail/273699/1/Crib-And-Rosa-By-An-Outhouse.jpg


http://www.englishbullydog.com/males.htm

Old English Bulldogge is a prime example of what happens when folks breed for form and not function.....I am a person that says to do a bit more research, to wait until you find an appropriate breeding pair of different lineage....you will end up with a stronger animal and less of a chance for a recessive to pop up, and in this particular example the nowaday bulldog has tremendous devastating health issues that usually have fatal results for them at a very very young age....there is so much more important issues and points to hit on than that of a purely visual goal....

Again, my opinion shared here only....

 

[GeoTerraTestudo]

The main concern with the genetics seems to be "keeping the morphs pure". They don't want people to start breeding and creating "mutts", they want pure morphs. To the point that they advocate "line breeding", which is breeding parent to offspring and sibling to sibling in order to get a more intense, "purer" color. I have always been taught this is inbreeding and a detriment to any species.

Frankly, I think the whole idea of line breeding animals is an outrage. I don't care if you're breeding turtles, lizards, cats, dogs, or people. Mixture is good because it masks deleterious recessive alleles, and prevents genetic disorders.

Who are these people who don't want to create "mutt" geckos? That is madness. Until humans started mucking around with them, all geckos were "mutts," and were better off for it. I am not a fan of morphs in the pet trade at all. A mixed pet is a healthy pet. I'm not talking about hybridizing different species, or even subspecies (unless it's the last of its kind). I'm talking about allowing animals of the same type to interbreed freely. Inbreeding is the road to disease and extinction.

Anybody advocating line breeding in geckos (or any other animal) is dead wrong.

---

Line breeding isn't an issue at all as long as the person doing it knows the exact genetics of their breeding stock. This goes with any species, from leopard geckos to dogs

Line breeding is always an issue and must always be avoided. Even if you're breeding away from some known genetic disorder, line breeding guarantees that the offspring will be inbreed, and more likely to develop some other genetic disorder somewhere down the line.

Throughout the animal kingdom (including us), there is generally an aversion to mating with your own family unless absolutely necessary. This has probably arisen over evolutionary time as a way to avoid the dangers of inbreeding depression.

People who line breed to artificially select for some phenotype have got a ticking time bomb on their hands, because sooner or later, the offspring are going to be messed up.

---

Old English Bulldogge is a prime example of what happens when folks breed for form and not function.....I am a person that says to do a bit more research, to wait until you find an appropriate breeding pair of different lineage....you will end up with a stronger animal and less of a chance for a recessive to pop up, and in this particular example the nowaday bulldog has tremendous devastating health issues that usually have fatal results for them at a very very young age....there is so much more important issues and points to hit on than that of a purely visual goal....

Well said! I for one have never owned a pedigreed dog in my life, nor do I want to. My first dog was a shepherd-lab, and my second was a shepherd-husky, and both were outstanding dogs. The pedigree people think they are improving dogs, but they are slowly destroying them. Parentage matters, but so does heterozygosity.

 

[CourtneyAndCarl]

Anybody advocating line breeding in geckos (or any other animal) is dead wrong.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree then. However, every breed of dog was created with quite a bit of line breeding. I know a working line border collie breeder, one of the best, who will occasionally line breed a brother and sister.

There is a huge difference between breeding a brother to a sister to see what happens and doing it when you have had your own documented genetic line for 30 years, over five generations of this line. These guys know the DNA of their animals inside and out. Obviously nothing is a guarantee but they have a basic idea of the genetics they will be getting out of each breeding.

But as I said, looks should have nothing to do with it. This particular breeder breeds for working ability and health. Just an idea of how healthy his dogs are, his oldest male is 11 and just officially retired from herding 6 months ago. He's still very fertile and breeds occasionally. Not to mention that he's won several prestigous herding titles. We will occasionally get dogs in RESCUE that have Mick in their lines, that's how prominent he is in the breeding world.

---

Well said! I for one have never owned a pedigreed dog in my life, nor do I want to. My first dog was a shepherd-lab, and my second was a shepherd-husky, and both were outstanding dogs. The pedigree people think they are improving dogs, but they are slowly destroying them. Parentage matters, but so does heterozygosity.

Depends on which "pedigree people" we are talking about. And for some reason that if you breed a lab to say a German Shepherd, both very prone to hip dysplasia, that the offspring will be less likely to have hip dysplasia, which is absolutely untrue. If both parents are carriers of the gene, it doesn't matter if it's two pure bred labs or two random mutts, the offspring are very likely going to have hip dysplasia also.

 

[GeoTerraTestudo]

We are just going to have to agree to disagree then. However, every breed of dog was created with quite a bit of line breeding. I know a working line border collie breeder, one of the best, who will occasionally line breed a brother and sister.

There is a huge difference between breeding a brother to a sister to see what happens and doing it when you have had your own documented genetic line for 30 years, over five generations of this line. These guys know the DNA of their animals inside and out. Obviously nothing is a guarantee but they have a basic idea of the genetics they will be getting out of each breeding.

But as I said, looks should have nothing to do with it. This particular breeder breeds for working ability and health. Just an idea of how healthy his dogs are, his oldest male is 11 and just officially retired from herding 6 months ago. He's still very fertile and breeds occasionally. Not to mention that he's won several prestigous herding titles. We will occasionally get dogs in RESCUE that have Mick in their lines, that's how prominent he is in the breeding world.

Line breeding is always wrong. Always. Wild wolves don't mate their siblings or parents, so why would domestic wolves (dogs) do so? Mating a dog to its family is going to destroy the line. Maybe not in one generation, but sooner or later, you are going to end up with dogs that have musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, and/or neurological problems. It's inevitable. Do your dogs and their puppies a favor, and let them outcross. If a breed does not outcross, it will die.

---

Depends on which "pedigree people" we are talking about. And for some reason that if you breed a lab to say a German Shepherd, both very prone to hip dysplasia, that the offspring will be less likely to have hip dysplasia, which is absolutely untrue. If both parents are carriers of the gene, it doesn't matter if it's two pure bred labs or two random mutts, the offspring are very likely going to have hip dysplasia also.

Like I said, both parentage and heterozygosity matter. But I'd much rather have a "mutt" (read: dog) than a purebred because the likelihood of genetic disorder is much less. If the parents are not carriers and they outcross, so much the better.

 

[CourtneyAndCarl]

We are just going to have to agree to disagree then. However, every breed of dog was created with quite a bit of line breeding. I know a working line border collie breeder, one of the best, who will occasionally line breed a brother and sister.

There is a huge difference between breeding a brother to a sister to see what happens and doing it when you have had your own documented genetic line for 30 years, over five generations of this line. These guys know the DNA of their animals inside and out. Obviously nothing is a guarantee but they have a basic idea of the genetics they will be getting out of each breeding.

But as I said, looks should have nothing to do with it. This particular breeder breeds for working ability and health. Just an idea of how healthy his dogs are, his oldest male is 11 and just officially retired from herding 6 months ago. He's still very fertile and breeds occasionally. Not to mention that he's won several prestigous herding titles. We will occasionally get dogs in RESCUE that have Mick in their lines, that's how prominent he is in the breeding world.

Line breeding is always wrong. Always. Wolves don't mate their siblings or parents, so why would domestic wolves (dogs) do so? Mating a dog to its family is going to destroy the line. Maybe not in one generation, but sooner or later, you are going to end up with dogs that have musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, and/or neurological problems. It's inevitable. Do your dogs and their puppies a favor, and let them outcross. If a breed does not outcross, it will die.

Outcrossing is actually destroying breeds almost as much as breeding for visuals is. Wolves would eventually breed with relatives all the time, it's inevitable, especially now. And a good breeder isn't going to just keep breeding siblings to siblings one after the other. They do painstaking research into the lines before they even attempt it, and it's a general rule that you absolutely do NOT line breed your dogs if there has been a line breeding within the last three generations on their pedigrees.

Rabbits breed with their siblings and cousins, etc, all the time. In biblical times, it wasn't that uncommon to marry your cousin. Line breeding is blown way out of proportion as this "bad thing" and most people who attack it don't even really know how it works

 

[GeoTerraTestudo]

Outcrossing is actually destroying breeds almost as much as breeding for visuals is.

Well, if by "destroying" you mean getting rid of ridiculous traits like pushed-in faces, curly tails (and spines), deep wrinkles, etc., then yes, it would destroy the breed and that would be a good thing, because such traits are not really points, they are actually deformities.

But if you're talking about adaptive breeds like collies, huskies, retrievers, etc. that are actually healthy, then outcrossing doesn't necessarily mean destroying a breed. For one thing, if you want to continue breeding true (unless you consider deformities "true") then you could just breed to other members of the breed that have no recent common ancestor. For another thing, you could breed to dogs from other breeds. This could give rise to a new type (which isn't necessarily a bad thing). After all, breeding true is not the be-all and end-all of canine health. Each breed before it was a breed was a land race - a group of dogs from a particular part of the world. Once a type of dog becomes an established breed, it is on the road to extinction because it is in a closed gene pool. Outcrossing is the road to long-term survival. If the conformation is not met, who cares? Health and survival are much more important.

Let's face it: animals are not objects. They are living beings that grow and change. You can't sculpt a breed of dog, for example, the way you sculpt a statue. A well-made statue won't change for centuries. But dogs only live for a few years, and then they must create another generation that will replace them. Dogs, like all animals, rely on DNA to build healthy bodies. We can't just freeze them in time like art. We have to let them grow, or they will die out.

Before morphs and breeds became morphs and breeds, they were just animals, honed by thousands to millions years of natural selection to be good at what they do. I'll grant you that some degree of artificial selection might help animals adapt to living with man. But beyond than that, we can't improve them, only damage them. it's only a little tinkering that may be needed, not a massive overhaul. I see no reason to breed morphs of geckos, and I see no reason to resort to line breeding (inbreeding) to create or maintain breeds of dog.

Wolves would eventually breed with relatives all the time, it's inevitable, especially now.

Well, that's not their fault, it's ours, isn't it? We're the ones hunting them down, breaking up their range, keeping them from migrating. If wolves are engaging in inbreeding, it's because we are in their way.

And a good breeder isn't going to just keep breeding siblings to siblings one after the other. They do painstaking research into the lines before they even attempt it, and it's a general rule that you absolutely do NOT line breed your dogs if there has been a line breeding within the last three generations on their pedigrees.

A responsible breeder of dogs or any other animal would always try to avoid inbreeding. Always. If a breeder systematically allows animals to mate their parents or siblings, then he is irresponsible.

Rabbits breed with their siblings and cousins, etc, all the time.

Source please.

In biblical times, it wasn't that uncommon to marry your cousin.

It happens even now in remote populations. That's where the term "kissing cousins" comes from. Marrying your cousin, genetically speaking, is not as desirable as outcrossing, but it is preferable to marrying your parent or sibling.

Line breeding is blown way out of proportion as this "bad thing" and most people who attack it don't even really know how it works.

As a biologist, I know how it works, and I know that it is only a matter of time before line breeding destroys a line.

 

[Yvonne G]

Looks like this is going to be another hot topic. Please remember to be polite.

 

[StudentoftheReptile]

A similar discussion took place not long ago on another forum. A good read, and good points made by many. Here's the link to the original thread, but the following are some highlights that more or less summed up my thoughts.

You also have to consider that inbreeding and line breeding happens all the time in the wild, do you really think that the wild snakes figure out whether they are related before doing the deed?? Opportunity knocks when male meets female and offspring occur. And since many species of snake don't roam far from their birthplace, I have a feeling it happens more often than not in the wild than in captivity.

Bearded Dragons have been inbred for decades, and I believe the founding stock gene pool for all the BD's outside of Australia is quite small as Australia has prohibited their export since the 1960's.

Parental nutrition and incubation / gestation temperatures play a much greater role in causing offspring deformities than inbreeding ever could.

The San Francisco garter snakes in Europe ALL trace back to one pair shipped to Holland as a zoo exchange in the 1960's...They have been classified as an endangered species since, so any further export has been prohibited. Breeders in Europe have no choice, if they want to perpetuate the species.

Deformities and handicaps occur in captivity from non inbred snakes just as often as with inbred snakes.....

These deformities are usually the fault of the breeder......imperfect husbandry of eggs is the main culprit.

Reptiles line breed in the wild.......think about the morphological evolution of a species.

how many people talk about "unrelated" parents but really know ALL the history of their animal? How many generations can you trace it back? Someone can say I got it from this person and I got the other from this other person but where did they get it from? Maybe the bought it from the SAME person. Who knows! Even if they didn't maybe the person beyond that bought the pair from the same person.

Hypothetical: There is one breeder who has been at it the longest, produces the most offspring each year and all from just a handful of parents.

So now comes the new kid in town, so that person buys a pair and then two years later sells babies, produced from the sibling pair originally purchased, NKIT then offers babies for sale and folks order pairs, and on and on and on down the line.

So along comes someone who does not want to inbreed, they buy a female from one of NKIT offered babies, then contacts the "top dog" and buys a "unrelated" mate for the other snake.

All the while completely oblivious to the concept that the first snake was actually an F5 descendant from "top dog" and is now subsequently inbreeding anyway.

Unless you caught a wild albino in your yard you have to be able to trace your animals roots back several people to ensure you are not crossing related snakes, and even then, one would have to be certain without any shadow of doubt that the snakes do not trace back to the same bloodlines.

---

Granted a lot of the discussion involved snakes and not tortoises, but I think most of it applies.

 

[CourtneyAndCarl]

Outcrossing is actually destroying breeds almost as much as breeding for visuals is.

Well, if by "destroying" you mean getting rid of ridiculous traits like pushed-in faces, curly tails (and spines), deep wrinkles, etc., then yes, it would destroy the breed and that would be a good thing, because such traits are not really points, they are actually deformities.

But if you're talking about adaptive breeds like collies, huskies, retrievers, etc. that are actually healthy, then outcrossing doesn't necessarily mean destroying a breed. For one thing, if you want to continue breeding true (unless you consider deformities "true") then you could just breed to other members of the breed that have no recent common ancestor. For another thing, you could breed to dogs from other breeds. This could give rise to a new type (which isn't necessarily a bad thing). After all, breeding true is not the be-all and end-all of canine health. Each breed before it was a breed was a land race - a group of dogs from a particular part of the world. Once a type of dog becomes an established breed, it is on the road to extinction because it is in a closed gene pool. Outcrossing is the road to long-term survival. If the conformation is not met, who cares? Health and survival are much more important.

Let's face it: animals are not objects. They are living beings that grow and change. You can't sculpt a breed of dog, for example, the way you sculpt a statue. A well-made statue won't change for centuries. But dogs only live for a few years, and then they must create another generation that will replace them. Dogs, like all animals, rely on DNA to build healthy bodies. We can't just freeze them in time like art. We have to let them grow, or they will die out.

Wolves would eventually breed with relatives all the time, it's inevitable, especially now.

Well, that's not their fault, it's ours, isn't it? We're the ones hunting them down, breaking up their range, keeping them from migrating. If wolves are engaging in inbreeding, it's because we are in their way.

And a good breeder isn't going to just keep breeding siblings to siblings one after the other. They do painstaking research into the lines before they even attempt it, and it's a general rule that you absolutely do NOT line breed your dogs if there has been a line breeding within the last three generations on their pedigrees.

A responsible breeder of dogs or any other animal would always try to avoid inbreeding. Always. If a breeder is always animals to mate their parents or siblings, then he is irresponsible.

Rabbits breed with their siblings and cousins, etc, all the time.

Source please.

In biblical times, it wasn't that uncommon to marry your cousin.

It happens even now in remote populations. That's where the term "kissing cousins" comes from. Marrying your cousin, genetically speaking, is not as desirable as outcrossing, but it is preferable to marrying your parent or sibling.

Line breeding is blown way out of proportion as this "bad thing" and most people who attack it don't even really know how it works.

As a biologist, I know how it works, and I know that it is only a matter of time before line breeding destroys a line.

At least with my own tried and true breed, the Border Collie, breeding out produces very undesirable herding traits. There is just something about the Border Collie and the way they maneuver sheep and cattle that no other breed can come close to. Breed out, even to Autralian Shepherds or Cattle dogs, and you almost always lose that trait. The only instance to the contrary that I can think of is Hanging Tree. The dogs coming out of Hanging Tree boast being some of the most intense in the world. But farmers quickly learned that they are way too intense for most situations. They are almost always way too aggressive to be pets, sometimes even too aggressive to work cattle. Even they don't have the same intensity that Border Collies do. What they have is more prey drive, not herding instinct.

That being said, I will have to disagree with you saying that only irresponsible breeders line breed. I actually think that only very responsible breeders are successful line breeders. I have never seen a puppy from a line breeding with any problems from a responsible breeder. NEVER. The breeders that are ruining breeds are the puppy millers and the show breeders. When they line breed you get things like roachbacked shepherds and brachycephalic dogs that can't breath. Working breeders line breed all the time, and very, very rarely have problems.

As for my source for the rabbit thing, I can't find anything on it, but I know I've read about a study where a scientist released a male and female rabbit into a blocked off part of their natural habitat, came back ten years later, and there was some certain amount of millions of rabbits there. Obviously they weren't too worried about who they were breeding with

 

[StudentoftheReptile]

A responsible breeder of dogs or any other animal would always try to avoid inbreeding. Always. If a breeder systematically allows animals to mate their parents or siblings, then he is irresponsible.

Rabbits breed with their siblings and cousins, etc, all the time.

Source please.

Line breeding is blown way out of proportion as this "bad thing" and most people who attack it don't even really know how it works.

As a biologist, I know how it works, and I know that it is only a matter of time before line breeding destroys a line.

I personally think it is not accurate comparing mammals that have been domesticated for thousands of years, like dogs and rabbits, to reptiles which have only been captive-bred with regularity for the past few decades.

 

[CourtneyAndCarl]

I personally think it is not accurate comparing mammals that have been domesticated for thousands of years, like dogs and rabbits, to reptiles which have only been captive-bred with regularity for the past few decades.

I agree, but the specific post is about leopard geckos and I think we can all agree that there has been a lot of breeding involved with those.

 

[StudentoftheReptile]

I personally think it is not accurate comparing mammals that have been domesticated for thousands of years, like dogs and rabbits, to reptiles which have only been captive-bred with regularity for the past few decades.

I agree, but the specific post is about leopard geckos and I think we can all agree that there has been a lot of breeding involved with those.

I'm aware of that. The point is that the genetics and physiology of reptiles is different than that of mammals. I don't know how many generations one has to line-breed to get deformities in leopard geckos, but remember that the base animals are essentially "pure" animals. In that, I mean they are leopard geckos that naturally evolved into that species. In contrast, when breeding dogs, no matter what the parents are, your founding stock is thousands of years worth of inbreeding and artificial selection. Same with rabbits and most livestock.

A more equal comparison would perhaps being comparing geckos to inbreeding wild timber wolves or eastern cottontail rabbits, as opposed to Labradors & poodles or English lops & netherland dwarfs. DO you see what I mean?

 

[CourtneyAndCarl]

A more equal comparison would perhaps being comparing geckos to inbreeding wild timber wolves or eastern cottontail rabbits, as opposed to Labradors & poodles or English lops & netherland dwarfs. DO you see what I mean?

Yup! All I know about leopard geckos is that mine is a special needs Tremper albino, and that last part means next to nothing to me

 

[GeoTerraTestudo]

At least with my own tried and true breed, the Border Collie, breeding out produces very undesirable herding traits. There is just something about the Border Collie and the way they maneuver sheep and cattle that no other breed can come close to. Breed out, even to Autralian Shepherds or Cattle dogs, and you almost always lose that trait. The only instance to the contrary that I can think of is Hanging Tree. The dogs coming out of Hanging Tree boast being some of the most intense in the world. But farmers quickly learned that they are way too intense for most situations. They are almost always way too aggressive to be pets, sometimes even too aggressive to work cattle. Even they don't have the same intensity that Border Collies do. What they have is more prey drive, not herding instinct.

That is fascinating. Well, like I say, some breeds (like border collies) are healthy and have desirable, useful traits (like efficient herding). I realize that breeding out to other breeds may contribute to the loss of that phenotype. However, there must be a way to outcross within the breed to avoid inbreeding as much as possible.

Re: incest in wild animals
It is true that wild animals may mate with their own family under certain situations. But this is not common. Sure, if you just introduce two rabbits into a new area, they have no choice but to engage in incest in order to survive. But as a rule, most animals use appearance and scent to judge roughly how distantly related another individual is, and choose their mate partly based on that.

Some species have low genetic diversity, but have been under strong selection pressure, so that genetic disorders don't crop up. Cheetahs, for example, are all very closely related, but have a very low incidence of genetic disease because of natural selection. Nevertheless, they still have less diversity to draw from. If a new disease were to crop up, it could wipe them all out in short order.

What bugs me about the quote at the beginning of this thread is that people seem to be promoting morph-breeding in geckos, calling non-morphs "mutts." There are a lot of problems with that notion. For one thing, these are morphs, not breeds. For another, non-morph geckos are wildtype, not "mutts." I can understand extolling the virtues of some color morph (although I don't agree with it). But to tell people not to breed wildtype geckos? That's just a recipe for disaster. Sooner or later, morphs are going to have to breed with wildtype geckos in order to avoid inbreeding depression. Discouraging wildtype breeding is like cutting the branch you're sitting on.

 

[CourtneyAndCarl]

Maybe my gecko was terribly inbred... like I said... "special needs"

 

[StudentoftheReptile]

What bugs me about the quote at the beginning of this thread is that people seem to be promoting morph-breeding in geckos, calling non-morphs "mutts." There are a lot of problems with that notion. For one thing, these are morphs, not breeds. For another, non-morph geckos are wildtype, not "mutts." I can understand extolling the virtues of some color morph (although I don't agree with it). But to tell people not to breed wildtype geckos? That's just a recipe for disaster. Sooner or later, morphs are going to have to breed with wildtype geckos in order to avoid inbreeding depression. Discouraging wildtype breeding is like cutting the branch you're sitting on.

That's so weird to me. Granted I don't know much about the gecko market, but in the snake side of things, morphs, mutations and hybrids have always been referred to as the "mutts," not the normal wild phenotypes. So backwards!

 

[GeoTerraTestudo]

That's so weird to me. Granted I don't know much about the gecko market, but in the snake side of things, morphs, mutations and hybrids have always been referred to as the "mutts," not the normal wild phenotypes. So backwards!

Bingo!

---

Maybe my gecko was terribly inbred... like I said... "special needs"

Oh, man ... don't ever get an albino. Just ask any albino person what they go through on a daily basis, and you'll know the kind of problems albino animals face.

 

[CourtneyAndCarl]

I actually didn't buy him, or want him for that matter I found him in an abandoned pet shop 4 months after all the animals were supposed to be gone. He had somehow managed to take care of himself in a cold, dark, empty building for that long... when I found him I was told that based on his size, he was around a month old, but he had to be at least 4... I guess he deserves to be a little "off" right? I was going to sell him once he got well to someone that would actually want him, but I'd feel bad giving someone an animal that I know isn't of perfect health, and I'll admit it... the little sucker has grown on me just a little bit