Hairless animals

December 19, 2002 1:54 PM

The Naked Mole-Rat is naturally naked. Conversely, these others are naked for reasons of disease (like this bear with alopecia and hairless chimpanzee) or mutation (the Sphynx cat; the Mexican hairless dog; the Chinese Crested Dog; the Naked Chicken; the Hairless Rat; a hairless ferret; the Nude Mouse; and the Hairless Hamster). What is the attraction of encouraging mutations that make normally furry animals furless?
posted by raygirvan (36 comments total)

Since seeing Sphynx cats at a cat show, I am really aware of how wrinkled my cat is under her fur. Funny, too, that skin color matches fur color--I noticed that when my last cat got shaved for an operation.
posted by y2karl at 1:59 PM on December 19, 2002

I don't know if my boss would appreciate me looking at those fine lookin' nekkid bears on company time.
posted by xmutex at 2:02 PM on December 19, 2002

That ferret isn't a mutation it's got an advanced case of an adrenal disease. It's very common in older ferrets and can often be treated with surgery or drugs.
posted by Mitheral at 2:04 PM on December 19, 2002

anthropomorphicationism?
posted by gravelshoes at 2:06 PM on December 19, 2002

What is the attraction of encouraging mutations that make normally furry animals furless?

i call it the chia-pet syndrome. everyone wants to try and water something to see if it grows.
posted by Stynxno at 2:06 PM on December 19, 2002

The bear looks like a cross between one of those wild african dogs and a chimp on all fours.
posted by landock at 2:09 PM on December 19, 2002

I am deeply horrified by the Naked Chicken, it's like Sunday dinner got up and walked away. Yech
posted by Julnyes at 2:17 PM on December 19, 2002

Naked Mole Rats! - Showcased in the documentary "Fast, Cheap and Out of Control" by Eroll Morris. Apparently they share an awfull lot in common with humans.
posted by troutfishing at 2:18 PM on December 19, 2002

The National Zoo Naked Mole Rat Cam! Live Nude Rats!!!!!
posted by Pollomacho at 2:21 PM on December 19, 2002

So, is this the sort of thing that parental controls block?

I found this discussion of mole rat eusociality amazing. They act just like ants in their social structure - the only mammals to do so.
posted by risenc at 2:26 PM on December 19, 2002

i have a hairless rat, she's named harriet :D i like the balding bear!
posted by kliuless at 2:29 PM on December 19, 2002

Here's my favorite site on the subject!
posted by mikrophon at 2:41 PM on December 19, 2002

Lest us not forget our friends, the Skinny Pigs, or hairless guinea pigs, as they prefer to be called.
posted by Newbornstranger at 2:55 PM on December 19, 2002

Let us... that's supposed to be "Let us not forget"

Curses.
posted by Newbornstranger at 2:56 PM on December 19, 2002

Isn't it a form of power-mad eugenics, legal because the victims are animals? A form of deranged genetic Nietzchianism? Apart from stupid, just sinful that human beings aren't satisfied with the great diversity of pets (never mind animals in general) that already exist?

How many other breeds of animals (some with impeccazble "pedigrees") suffer terribly from pulmonary, cardiac and neurological deficiencies just because some pseudo-Dr.Moreaus from the Kennel Club or whatever decided to play God?

Great post, raygivran. Depressing but deservedly so. And suitably startling. Thanks for the wake-up call.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 3:00 PM on December 19, 2002 [1 favorite]

Mitheral: That ferret isn't a mutation ...

Thanks. Miscategorised.
posted by raygirvan at 3:30 PM on December 19, 2002

human beings aren't satisfied with the great diversity of pets (never mind animals in general) that already exist?

It's an entirely subjective determination whether the ideal pet exists or not, I've heard the above argument before and it just doesn't make sense. Yes, some breeds have genetic disorders, responsible breeders are working to eradicate the problems in many of them (I'm involved with a few dog groups and this is actually a hot topic in a few breeds right now). I think it's a bit hyperbolic to compare selective breeding with "genetic Nietzchianism", what would you prefer we do instead, not keep pets? Not use animals for specific purposes? Most breeds were bred for specific purposes (herding, hunting, what have you), and the vast majority of them don't suffer for it (trends in many breeds in some parts of the world are thankfully moving away from the extreme types toward more moderate types, this should help to clear up some of the physical issues in dogs like the English Bulldog). The ones who suffer most are the ones, purebred or mutt, bred indiscriminately by uncaring idiots who'll sell them to anyone (mainly pet shops, but anyone with money will do) to turn a profit without concern for soundness or temperament or the health of the breed as a whole. On an individual level, most purebred animals are just fine.
posted by biscotti at 3:31 PM on December 19, 2002

How many other breeds of animals (some with impeccazble "pedigrees") suffer terribly from pulmonary, cardiac and neurological deficiencies just because some pseudo-Dr.Moreaus from the Kennel Club or whatever decided to play God?

I agree with you somewhat, Miguel, especially with regard to some of the irresponsible behavior of dog breeders and others. But you do realize that this is just the beginning, and that what is to come will make this seem as nothing? Perhaps with genetic engineering and other more direct techniques, some of the hit-or-miss nature of traditional breeding programs will be avoided, though obviously such techniques also bring much more power to the table.

It's a complex issue, but I suspect that our current notions of "species" and other current taxonomic classification is going to diminish dramatically over the next century or two, shifting the focus to the level of the gene.
posted by rushmc at 3:58 PM on December 19, 2002

Let's not forget this man. Natural? I don't think so.
posted by drinkcoffee at 4:08 PM on December 19, 2002

Cute little things, I loved holding them when I worked at the Pacific Science Center in Seattle. Seems as though they still have them there as an exhibit.
posted by rooster at 4:43 PM on December 19, 2002

Don't forget that the hominid (man) used to be hairy too. I guess we just didn't need so much hair all over us because of global warming.
posted by timyang at 5:03 PM on December 19, 2002

How many other breeds of animals (some with impeccazble "pedigrees") suffer terribly from pulmonary, cardiac and neurological deficiencies just because some pseudo-Dr.Moreaus from the Kennel Club or whatever decided to play God?

plenty of animals that are a result of "god" playing god suffer terribly from deficiencies or worse - those boars whose tusks grow in a curve until they pierce their own skulls (late in life after they've reproduced) jump to mind, though really any disease, deformity, or deficiency is the result of imperfect breeding and possibilities.

Not saying we should be dismissive of our active choices resulting in pain, but to imply that if we weren't involved all would be ideal is naive. We must use our powers for good, not evil! - not pretend we don't have powers & that blind nature is the best route.
posted by mdn at 5:25 PM on December 19, 2002 [1 favorite]

I agree with you, mdn. On the flip side, though, it is also important not to make the converse mistake and to dismiss the efficacy of extremely long periods of evolution in eliminating a lot of errors that we might unintentionally duplicate, with undesirable results. Often there are reasons that things are as they are, and until we can understand a lot of those reasons, we should move forward with some care and awareness of the potential consequences.
posted by rushmc at 5:49 PM on December 19, 2002 [1 favorite]

Don't forget that the hominid (man) used to be hairy too

We still are, except for Kojak. ISTR that humans are among the more densely-furred primates -- it's just that our hairs are short and fine instead of long and coarse. Usually. *shudders thinking about people I've seen at the beach*
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:59 PM on December 19, 2002

Let's not forget this man. Natural? I don't think so.

:::shudder::: At least the naked pets stay inside their homes.

As far as the naked pets go, however, I don't see how any pain here is being caused. They don't have fur, but they are bred to live in temperature controlled environments anyway. Now, I have never nor ever will buy a purebred animal because I strongly believe in adopting from shelters, but at least I can see why someone with serious allergies or other fur-issues would seek to purchase a hairless. In these instances, however, I think it's probably the consumer's responsibility to make sure that their breeder is taking into account the well-being of each animal and is not just out to exploit some crazy pet fad and make a quick buck.
posted by catfood at 6:03 PM on December 19, 2002

I can see why someone with serious allergies or other fur-issues would seek to purchase a hairless

Such people would still be allergic, it's dander, not hair, that most people are allergic to. But the dander is easier to control on hairless pets, so they are sometimes a good choice for allergic people (there are breeds which shed minimally and which produce minimal dander, these are actually more hypoallergenic than most hairless breeds). Hairless pets are a lot of maintenance, they need bathing about once a week (no hair to absorb the oil. so they get greasy), and they need sunscreen, they also cost an arm and a leg to purchase.

...make sure that their breeder is taking into account the well-being of each animal and is not just out to exploit some crazy pet fad and make a quick buck.

Given that most of the hairless pets are difficult and expensive to breed, you don't actually see very many backyard breeders or mills who breed them, fortunately, but it's a good point.
posted by biscotti at 7:41 PM on December 19, 2002

Just a question I've been thinking about lately. Some of you may know how in the US there was a supposed "mean gene" going around the St. Bernard breed, a usually friendly, docile breed that suddenly, due to a genetic mean began to be reported as committing some savage attacks on owners, well I was just wondering, does that mean that maybe some people are just genetic ass-holes and there's not much else we can do about it? Not sure how I feel about the question, but I thought I'd throw it out.
posted by Pollomacho at 8:18 PM on December 19, 2002 [1 favorite]

does that mean that maybe some people are just genetic ass-holes and there's not much else we can do about it?

I'm sure there are several different viewpoints on this issue, but I'm sure that a person with a genetic disposition to be aggressive with the right environment would certainly turn out to be an asshole. I don't know how perfectly you can use genes to determine how a person or Saint Bernard will act without taking their environment and upbringing into account. I read somewhere that a study reflected that genetics influence behavior more than people assume, but I am too tired/lazy to look it up.

Interesting question though.
posted by catfood at 9:20 PM on December 19, 2002

All this nudity! I'm busting wood over here.
posted by letterneversent at 11:24 PM on December 19, 2002

this should help to clear up some of the physical issues in dogs like the English Bulldog

I'm in your camp, biscotti, but I do love the wheezing, drooling , farting scrunch faced dogs. We had English Bulldogs when I was a kid --dumb as a post but great hearted--and I know their issues but I'm sweet on them, French Bulldogs and Pugs. I've seen American Bulldogs, too, which seem to represent an older type--is this what you're talking about?

I went to a cat show recently and saw examples of Bengals, Pixie Bobs and Ragdolls. Ragdolls seem so.. relaxed for cats.

It's interesting that pixie bobs and bengals both allude to wild cat/domestic cat ancestry. This is not the case with dogs. I don't know if there's something about cats or that it's just that we haven't had their company as long as dogs but cats don't seem to have been as physical plastic in our hands as dogs have been. There's a range between Oriental Shorthairs and Persians, say, but still...

I suppose that if we bred them much bigger they would be potentially lethal--I notice that ragdolls are huge but kinda on the relaxed side, if not congenitally sleepy--analogous in a way to, say, Newfoundlands in temperment and affect.

And, man, The whole scene among the breeders was interesting, too. You could do a movie.

oh... They already have....
posted by y2karl at 1:17 AM on December 20, 2002

y2karl: cats don't seem to have been as physical plastic in our hands as dogs have been.

But there is the Munchkin...
posted by raygirvan at 5:27 AM on December 20, 2002

y2karl, Persians were bred to enhance the smooshed face in a fairly short period of time. Even in the 1930's they had longer faces. These Persians are now called "traditional Persians". Several problems result from having such flattened faces including difficulty breathing and pressure on the tear ducts which causes weepy eyes.

My late, black Persian male, Sam was considered imperfect by his breeder. She was going to have him put to sleep because he wasn't show quality. We took him dealt with the various health issues that our mixed breed pets never had. While I miss him and his raccoon-shamle gait, I never want a purebred animal again.
posted by onhazier at 7:00 AM on December 20, 2002

Very odd subject matter for Christmastime.These pictures are remarkably unsettling and disgusting on several levels. Mr. Bigglesworth's cousins seem particularly satanic. And don't get me started about the chickens.
posted by 111 at 10:30 AM on December 20, 2002

I've seen American Bulldogs, too, which seem to represent an older type--is this what you're talking about?

Sorta. There are some English breeders who are trying to get the Bulldog back to the way it was thirty-odd years ago (somewhat more similar to the American than the English, but maintaining many of the English characteristics). They still have the appeal of the standard English ones, but aren't as extreme (just a bit more nose makes a huge difference to breathing, and I hope they're trying to reduce the corkscrew tails enough so that they don't need amputating). I love the brachycephalic breeds, too, but I'd like to see them a bit less extreme than they are today (the way they were twenty years ago or so).

All kinds of cats have been just as messed with, the Abyssinian was created in a relatively short time from scratch (pun intended) to mimic ancient Egyptian cats. onhazier pointed out the massive changes in Persians (over the last twenty-thirty years breeds of many species have become far more extreme, Arabian horses, Quarter Horses, Persian cats, English Bulldogs, but thankfully the trend now seems to be moving away from the extreme).
posted by biscotti at 11:43 AM on December 20, 2002

Wide and irresponsible distribution of these haired hamsters could cause an "outbreak" of hairless hamsters to appear in the future.

A warning for us all.
posted by stbalbach at 3:34 PM on December 20, 2002

Well, biscotti--and onhazier, too--one thing I realized from going to that cat show was how new all those breeds are and how fast standards can change. I'd never given much thought to it before--your comments have been instructive.

I rather suspected the wild cat ancestry claims for the Bengals and Pixie Bobs were farfetched and they are the same as Abyssinians, bred from scratch. My last cat was half Abyssinian--they are really beautiful, as are Somalis. There was a beautiful Somali kitten at the cat show, who, when the judge waved the wand to test its alertness, teleported up her sweater in a flash going after it.

I was looking for the munchkin, raygirvan, but forgot the name. Kitty dachshunds--I am ambivalent towards this concept.

Well, our bulldogs were alive over 35 years ago--they don't seem that much less scrunched in the nose in my mind's eye than the ones I see now. But they did wheeze and tended to be asthmatic at times, so I see your point.

Bulldogs, now there's a dog that loves to be pummeled and thumped--but just try to play tug of war with one. They are relentless. And so darn cute as puppies.
posted by y2karl at 4:32 PM on December 20, 2002