Well, I'm on my way to New Orleans, so will be off the ether for a week or so, but don't think that lets any of you off the hook! I was asked a rather simple question via e-mail, and as simple questions go, this one was too hard to answer. I was asked, what are the best five books/articles/magazines a ferret owner could own. I know my opinions, but they are biased because of my personal writing expectations, and natural history knowledge. So I am putting it to the members of the list; what are your favorite five books/articles/magazines? If you post them to me as well as the FML, I'll count them up and post the results, with comments, as "List Favorites," but I already get 25 or more e-mails per day, so I won't respond to each list; I'll just count them. I don't want to accidentally influence anyone, so I will post my personal list when I post the others. So send the lists in! After I had described all my traveling this summer, it was brought to my attention that I could make a cool show for the FMLers to enjoy by simply taking a few pictures and posting them on the web as a sort of "Vacation Slide Show." (As if data gathering is a vacation....I'll have you know that I have blisters on the thumb of my caliper hand, and the index finger is quite sore from pressing "enter."). So I will take lots of pictures of the FMLers I visit, and build a web page to show them. You will then be able to connect a face to the name. So then I thought, why not just let those with access to a camera send me their pics, and I'll scan them and post them as well? What I don't want is ferret pictures (well, yes, I want them, but not for this) unless a clear and visible face (i.e., owner) is in the picture with the fuzzbutt. When I get back from New Orleans, I'll post a picture of myself, with my wild thick and flowing hair, so you can all see why my mother slapped me at birth (I'm NOT ugly, just esthetically disadvantaged...). I recieved about ten e-mails asking what I thought about the debate about small vs. large breeders. What a can-o-worms. You're asking a guy that can't tell a panda from a sable....well, ok, I can tell that, but you get the idea; I know lots about the ferret, but not much about the breeders involved with ferrets. I know that large breeders, those that sell to research institutions, want a product (the ferret) that is healthy, genetically similar, and having no genetic nor inbreeding faults that might screw up a million dollar experiment. (Research scientists hate that). And they love the ferret; just scan "Biological Abstracts" and you will see thousands of entries regarding the ferret, mostly research oriented. So someone like MF has to produce a healthy ferret that can fit the bill. Presumably they do, if sales are an indication of that type of success. The debate seems to be about the size of the gene pool. A gene pool is defined as the complete genetic information possessed by a population of breeding individuals (neutered animals are not part of the gene pool). The pool as be as small as a single breeding pair, or as large as an entire species, depending on how you define the population. The situation is sometimes complicated in domesticated species whos breeding is controlled by humans, such as in ferrets. For the sake of discussion, let's assume the population consists of those animals available for breeding to a specific breeder, such as Pam Grant or Marshall Farms. Generally, I think most hobby or small breeders have a larger actual gene pool than most lab-animal oriented breeders, especially those like Pam Grant and Bill Killian who have broadened their genetic base to include non-American ferrets. (This in *NO WAY* implies those breeders who have not done so have an inferior product, nor does it imply I think they should introduce new stock, nor do I endorse the people mentioned. I am simply stating they are good examples of a broad genetic base, that's all). Think about it; for large commerical companies trying to produce a product that reacts similarly (for research purposes) you basically need a similar genetic make-up. So you cross and recross cousins to eliminate inbreeding problems, but to also reduce the genetic variablity of the basic stock. So even though they have thousands of breeders, the gene pool is quite limited. Ultimately, they can become virtually identical, which would be very good for research. Without getting into extremely boring math or discussions of gene flow, the reason the pool is limited relates to breadth, not depth. In other words, it is determined by the amount of genetic variablity present. So, if two populations have 100 individuals, and pop A has 16 genes for fur color, and pop B has only 5, then pop A has a larger gene pool (assuming all other genes follow the same trend). Most of the small breeders I know produce kits that are fairly easy to distinguish from each other, even when very young; a fairly good indication of genetic variability. And what is the danger of low genetic variablity? Ask any farmer who lost an entire crop of corn or wheat to one specific pest. How many Irish died during the potato famine? Lack of variability renders the species to a high risk of extinction due to a lack of gene-borne resistance. So my response to the debate is, its not the number of breeding animals that determines the size of the genetic pool, but the amount variablity present. If you are curious about the degree of variability present, ask to look at the entire litter; excluding the occasional twins, they should be distinguishable for the most part. The curious part about this debate is that you can have a large gene pool, and still be guilty of inbreeding, or not inbreed at all, but have a small gene pool. To increase the size of the gene pool (and gene flow as well) get animals from as many different places you can, and introduce new stock each generation. Doing this, even small breeders can have a diverse and healthy stock. See you in a week Bob and the 13 Darlins not at Nawleans. [Posted in FML issue 1533]