# Do your rats lay on their backs?



## pinkpixies (May 22, 2008)

My rats do it all the time hehe it's the cutest thing ever! Right now...Oreo is laying completely on his back on the 2nd floor with his feet in the air...LOL I would take a pic but I only have my webcam and it wouldn't turn out.


----------



## kenRakuu (Mar 29, 2008)

My rats never Do, I wish they would it's so awesomely cute! Albert sleeps inside my shirt most of the time


----------



## phaidraft (Apr 9, 2008)

I've caught Lizzy at it only once.


----------



## Vicki (Mar 17, 2008)

My Templeton that I had to get put down, she would only lay on her back when she was nursing babies....
Dont mind the mess of the cage, it was where I would put her and the babies when it was close to weaning time, and boy they were little terrors always throwing everything around, that stuff int he corner was a pizza crust LOL


----------



## pinkpixies (May 22, 2008)

aww!


----------



## JulesMichy (Apr 8, 2007)

Vicki said:


> My Templeton that I had to get put down, she would only lay on her back when she was nursing babies....


Why were you breeding a hairless?

Rats lay on their backs and expose the soles of their feet when they're too warm, *pinkpixies*. Do you have air conditioning in the room you keep them in?


----------



## Caity (Apr 1, 2008)

Norbert, my fat baby, sits on his butt and then flops back to groom his stomach, rather than standing and bending over like everyone else.


----------



## pinkpixies (May 22, 2008)

no I don't have a/c...but they do it all the time...even in winter when it's a bit chilly in here. It's not even warm here yet...70s.


----------



## pinkpixies (May 22, 2008)

Caity said:


> Norbert, my fat baby, sits on his butt and then flops back to groom his stomach, rather than standing and bending over like everyone else.


LOL yeah...they do that as well. They do it a lot when grooming each other too.


----------



## Vicki (Mar 17, 2008)

Do i have air conditioning? She lay on her back twice the entire time I had her in over 2 years. But yeah I have AC, and I know how to keep my animals comfortable.


----------



## JulesMichy (Apr 8, 2007)

Vicki said:


> Your questions make it sound like you think i did something cruel or abusive to my rats. yes I have airconditioning, I know what it takes to keep my animals comfortable, even the hairless rats. i must have done something right for them to live over 3 years.
> And I bred her because there was nowhere here that had any hairless rats at all, and the pet store I helped out wanted babies to sell. They were sold for $18 a piece and only people we knew bought them as pets only and people who knew how to properly care for a hairless rat. I didnt let them go to just anybody. i see nothing wrong with that.


The air conditioning question was directed toward the OP, as a way of finding out why her rats lay on their backs.

Hairless rats have difficulty regulating their body temperature, and their skin tears like tissue paper, which leaves them exceptionally susceptible to abscesses and infection. Breeding hairless rats is unethical, and no responsible breeder will do it. Good breeders want to see hairless rats eventually eliminated altogether.


----------



## Vicki (Mar 17, 2008)

Oh well it was under the quote of my post and of my pic of Templeton... so assumed it was directed at me.


----------



## CaptainFlow (May 16, 2007)

JulesMichy said:


> Hairless rats have difficulty regulating their body temperature, and their skin tears like tissue paper, which leaves them exceptionally susceptible to abscesses and infection. Breeding hairless rats is unethical, and no responsible breeder will do it. Good breeders want to see hairless rats eventually eliminated altogether.


I have not heard any of this, where are you getting your information?

Yes, hairless rats' skin tends to show scratches more often, but that's just because it's not covered in fur to cover it up. The skin itself is the same as a fuzzy rat's. As far as I know (though I admit, not from personal experience, just from observations mostly from this forum), their skin does not tear like paper, and is actually quite warm and soft. 

As for breeding hairless rats being unethical, I have never heard that, either. It's marginally debatable, I suppose, since they do require a little extra care, but as long as the owner is properly knowledgeable about how to keep them warm, there's not a lot of difference. 

As for ethical breeders not breeding them, just googling shows several breeders of hairless rats, including several that are in the National Rat Registry and other regional influential rat groups. So I'm not sure if that's a correct statement. 

I do know that hairless mothers sometimes have trouble lactating, and occasionally lack a certain motherly instinct. But not all the time. And all that means is that the breeder has to take special care to ensure the babies have an alternate means of support, like a furry rat who's also lactating. It's a little more trouble on the breeder's part, but it's not impossible or unethical as far as I can tell. (As long as it's an ethical breeder, of course! All standards for good breeding should still be applied, hairless or not!)

Are you perhaps thinking of tailless rats? Rats regulate their body temp through their tail, and being tailless also affects their balance, so I know that there IS a debate among breeders if tailless rats are ethical to breed. But hairless is news to me. 

Goddamn I've been all soap-boxy recently. Sorry for the long posts, but I tend to get wordy sometimes, and apparently this is it!


----------



## JulesMichy (Apr 8, 2007)

CaptainFlow said:


> I do know that hairless mothers sometimes have trouble lactating, and occasionally lack a certain motherly instinct.


Knew I was forgetting something.

Rats can't sweat, and therefore cool themselves through the soles of their feet and their tail. As far as keeping warm, though, fur is a definite benefit. A hairless rat has more trouble staying warm, especially if they have fewer cagemates to cuddle up to. I'll find a source for that tomorrow, as it's late and I have work in the morning.

(ETA: Nevermind. That was easy enough.)



> Hairless rats get scratches and scrapes more often than their hairy counterparts.





> Even normal play can often injure the skin of the hairless.





> The temperature of a hairless ratâ€™s environment should be no lower than 68 degrees





> Hairless rats should not be kept alone. Not only are rats social animals, but it is essential for the hairless to have a companion for the extra body warmth when sleeping.


So we've got a "breed" of rat whose skin tears easily, who get cold easily, and who have difficult pregnancies. Gosh, let's create more of them, shall we?

Every rat breeder I know is strongly against the breeding of hairless rats. There is just no need to breed more of them, given all of their difficulties. There's no point to it. Especially when there are plenty of less "exotic" rats, just your plain old PEWs and black hoodies in shelters and rescues across the country.


----------



## Vicki (Mar 17, 2008)

Well I must say i have dealt with rats for about 20 years and I have NEVER heard anyone in my life ever say it was unethical about hairless rats. I guess that makes me unethical because I have hairless rats.
Oh well as long as these type rats are needing homes, I will give them homes. And as for breeding, yes I bred my girl, but I knew who they went to and knew they would have good homes, and I see nothing wrong with that.


----------



## FunkyRes (May 24, 2008)

JulesMichy said:


> Vicki said:
> 
> 
> > Your questions make it sound like you think i did something cruel or abusive to my rats. yes I have airconditioning, I know what it takes to keep my animals comfortable, even the hairless rats. i must have done something right for them to live over 3 years.
> ...


Opinions are like belly buttons - everyone has one (um, except for Adam and Eve )

Defining a breeder as "Good" or "Bad" based upon their opinion of an issue is something I disagree with. Some people specifically want hairless rats, and while the risk may be higher I think there are plenty examples of hairless rats that live long productive lives in captivity.


----------



## collisiontheory89 (Apr 16, 2008)

I don't think hairless rats have different skin to any other kind of rat, they are simply lacking/have a mutation in the gene that codes for fur. I mean, their skin is unprotected which obviously isn't ideal, but I don't think it's actually a different cellular composition to any other rat? I guess as an owner you would just have to be aware of their lack of protection and be careful with them.

I think the question as to whether or not it's unethical to breed hairless is a tough one. I personally have never heard anything about it before. The fact that they have managed to survive thus far implies there are some advantages to not having fur, or at least that they are capable of surviving. People with sickle cell anaemia have a genetic mutation which results in sickle-shaped red blood cells. Obviously this causes problems for the person with the disease, but the mutation actually managed to survive because it was advantageous. People with the sickle-shaped red blood cells were not affected by malaria. My point is, nature does not keep animals alive with unfavourable genetic mutations. There are a few exceptions, but not normally to this degree.

I'm not sure if hairless rats are the result of a genetic mutation occuring naturally, or by humans (genetic modification to create a new species).

If your argument, that it is unethical to breed hairless rats, is correct, then we shouldn't breed PEWs either. They're the result of a genetic mutation, and they have really poor eyesight. In all honesty, I don't think they suffer from it and because they are kept in a controlled environment, it's hardly an issue. If we were to allow every species that was genetically mutated to die out (because it's stupid or unethical to let them breed) then we would be losing a SERIOUS amount of species all over the world. If the mutation is incredibly dangerous to the animal's health it would have either been spontaneously aborted before being born or would have died out/significantly reduced in numbers by now.


----------



## JulesMichy (Apr 8, 2007)

collisiontheory89 said:


> My point is, nature does not keep animals alive with unfavourable genetic mutations. There are a few exceptions, but not normally to this degree.


Hairless rats don't exist in nature. They aren't natural, they only exist as a domestic species.



> If your argument, that it is unethical to breed hairless rats, is correct, then we shouldn't breed PEWs either. They're the result of a genetic mutation, and they have really poor eyesight.


Oh, for the love of...

All rats have poor eyesight, so it hardly matters if one is a little worse than the other. You're comparing apples and oranges, or did you even read the quotes I provided from Rat Guide?

- Even friendly scuffles can cause serious injury to a hairless rat due to their unprotected skin.

- Without cagemates and a carefully controlled environment, they are unable to keep themselves warm. They die more easily of exposure than furred rats, so even a temporary cage escape can be fatal.

- They are prone to difficulty lactating and caring for their litter. So before you can even think of breeding a hairless, you have to have a surrogate mother producing milk on hand just in case. Even then, the pups will miss their colostrum window and be immuno-compromised for the rest of their lives.

So, despite all of this, we should breed more? Despite the fact that the people on this forum absolutely lose their **** if someone breeds two rats of unknown backgrounds on the off chance that they could pass genetic disease on to their pups, and we KNOW hairless rats will pass traits on that make their pups quality of life more difficult and may not even be able to care for their pups, we should still breed them... Why? Give me one good reason, other than "people want them."


----------



## FunkyRes (May 24, 2008)

Why do we breed *any* pet other than for the reason that "People want them" ??
Answers like "to improve the species" are just a justification for some to breed while they tell others not to - there's no reason to "improve the species" if people don't want them.

btw - I personally don't care if people breed rats of unknown lineage. I do care about excessive inbreeding.

In fact - I suspect many of the "pet store" problem rats are the result of excessive inbreeding. Breeding animals of different lineage, even if you don't know the details of the lineage, tends to result in a high percentage of healthy young. It's called Heterosis - aka hybrid vigor.

A hairless rat may be more sensitive to bad husbandry than other rats, but how often do they have the horrors you speak of with proper husbandry? It seems an awful lot of people successfully keep them.


----------



## Vicki (Mar 17, 2008)

Ok so Im some horrible, unethical idiot. You have made your dang point. Until you all here I had never heard or read anything anywhere saying it was unethical or wrong to breed hairless rats. And i did research on it before I bred my girl, if I had seen that it wasnt good to do that, I WOULDNT HAVE DONE IT!!!!! But I knew a few breeders and they bred hairless, never said a word, i never saw anything on line that I looked up about breeding them saying it was unethical etc.
So flipping sue me. I just try to show a cute picture of one of my girls and i get attacked like I killed the president or something. I dont need this. I joined this forum to meet and talk to other rat lovers, not to be attacked. Its been fun, but I think i am going to leave. I have enough crap going on in real life, I dont need to come online where its supposed to be enjoyable and relaxing to be attacked. So goodbye and good luck everyone with your furbabies.


----------



## Angry_J (Feb 3, 2008)

Back to the original topic, I've also seen rats that are very comfortable / confident with their owners / homes lay on their backs. My fat girl, Scrappy, will lay on her back in my hands for short stints. Although, the other 3 won't. Scrappy is definitely the most confident. 

Here's the little scamp on walkabout, this was before she put on a lot of weight though - only about 4 months old here.


----------



## JulesMichy (Apr 8, 2007)

FunkyRes said:


> btw - I personally don't care if people breed rats of unknown lineage. I do care about excessive inbreeding.


So you're not against irresponsible breeding, just good breeders who use high quality lines with known lineages, genetic history and temperament. Good to know.



> Breeding animals of different lineage, even if you don't know the details of the lineage, tends to result in a high percentage of healthy young. It's called Heterosis - aka hybrid vigor.


Hybrid vigor is a myth. A hybrid is a cross between two different species. Ex: a horse and a donkey create a mule. Breeding rats with different parentage does not create a hybrid. The fact that you're even throwing that term around shows that you have no understanding of genetics whatsoever.


----------



## ledzepgirl16 (Oct 29, 2007)

Hmm...while a hybrid does usually refer to a cross between two species, I thought that hybrid vigor could refer to a cross between two different breeds, or even two different lines?

_"Heterosis: a situation where crossing two inbred lines yields progeny that are more healthy/vigorous than their parents. (More commonly used in plant breeding.)"_

from http://www.canine-genetics.com/glossary.htm


----------



## JulesMichy (Apr 8, 2007)

ledzepgirl16 said:


> Hmm...while a hybrid does usually refer to a cross between two species, I thought that hybrid vigor could refer to a cross between two different breeds, or even two different lines?
> 
> _"Heterosis: a situation where crossing two inbred lines yields progeny that are more healthy/vigorous than their parents. (More commonly used in plant breeding.)"_
> 
> from http://www.canine-genetics.com/glossary.htm


It is used in plant breeding, purely because Mendel used the term. In true genetic terms, however, a genetic cross or "crossbred mutant" comes out of breeding two breeds of the same species. A hybrid exclusively refers to a cross between species, except when it is used regarding plant crosses out of tradition dating back to Mendel.

If you want, I can go and break out my 300 level college genetics textbook and copy the definition of "hybrid" directly from the text. But considering that I just spent an entire semester studying Drosophilia back crosses, forward crosses, mutants, and plant hybrids, I think I'm pretty well up to date on genetic terminology at the moment.


----------



## ledzepgirl16 (Oct 29, 2007)

pinkpixies said:


> no I don't have a/c...but they do it all the time...even in winter when it's a bit chilly in here. It's not even warm here yet...70s.


Pink, a select few of my girls do it, too (regardless of temperature...they just seem to prefer the position for sleeping  ), and after I got over the initial shock of thinking they were dead, I thought it was adorable, too. I'll keep an eye out and try to snap some pictures.


----------



## ration1802 (Sep 25, 2007)

I've never had any of my rats sleep on their back. On their heads..on others..under others..upside down..yes. Never on their backs.

I feel left out now :lol:


----------



## FunkyRes (May 24, 2008)

JulesMichy said:


> FunkyRes said:
> 
> 
> > btw - I personally don't care if people breed rats of unknown lineage. I do care about excessive inbreeding.
> ...


Please do not twist what I said.



> Breeding animals of different lineage, even if you don't know the details of the lineage, tends to result in a high percentage of healthy young. It's called Heterosis - aka hybrid vigor.





> Hybrid vigor is a myth. A hybrid is a cross between two different species. Ex: a horse and a donkey create a mule. Breeding rats with different parentage does not create a hybrid. The fact that you're even throwing that term around shows that you have no understanding of genetics whatsoever.


Hybrid vigor is a common term for heterosis. The common term may be incorrect, but it is the common term nonetheless.

And no - it is not a myth. It does not guarantee a healthy animal but it is very reall

I'm sure you are familiar with the term heterozygous with all your fancy "level 300" learning.
Detrimental gene pairs tend to recessive, as that is the most likely way they can survive in a population without natural selection eliminating them.

When you cross two animals of different lineage, they tend to have fewer genes in common, resulting in an increased number of heterozygous gene pairs. The detrimental genes (that we may not know how to identify) may still be in the offspring, but are much more likely to be in a heterozygous gene pair with a dominant gene that is not defective.

Second generation (inbreeding) will reduce the number of heterozygous gene pairs in any given individual, and you may see some of the detrimental effects return.

I can give a couple real world examples that your biology profs are probably familiar with.

Pumas in Florida were having serious reproductive problems as a result of declining population reducing the gene pool. Introduction of Pumas from Texas saw immediate increased vigor in the first generation. Hybrid vigor in action.

A viper in Europe became isolated from the main population due to habitat destruction, and they started to see the numbers drop. Investigating why, they had lower fertility and less vigor, typical result of excessive inbreeding. They introduced some males from the main population - essentially replacing the broken gene flow, and the next generation had normal fertility and increased vigor.

Hybrid vigor is very real.


----------



## JulesMichy (Apr 8, 2007)

FunkyRes said:


> I'm sure you are familiar with the term heterozygous with all your fancy "level 300" learning.


I'm sorry I'm more highly educated in the sciences than you. Try not to be bitter about it.



> Detrimental gene pairs tend to recessive, as that is the most likely way they can survive in a population without natural selection eliminating them.


Wrong. Detrimental gene pairs do tend to be homozygous recessive, however they also tend to be lethal or effect an animal's ability to pass their genes on. Homozygous recessive individuals for lethal recessive traits don't pass their genes on to the next generation, skewing allele frequency toward homozygous dominant and heterozygous individuals. The most likely way for a recessive trait to survive in a population is through heterozygous individuals, which can almost never be fully removed from a population. 

However, and here's the kicker, selective breeding using true-breeding lines for homozygous dominant individuals can eventually lead to a population with mostly A/A individuals, with A/a individuals gradually decreasing with each generation, and a/a individuals not surviving to pass on their genes.



> When you cross two animals of different lineage, they tend to have fewer genes in common, resulting in an increased number of heterozygous gene pairs. The detrimental genes (that we may not know how to identify) may still be in the offspring, but are much more likely to be in a heterozygous gene pair with a dominant gene that is not defective.


Wrong. When a heterozygote mates, they always have the same ratio of offspring: 0.25 A/A, 0.5 A/a and 0.25 a/a. Heterozygotes will always produce one out of four homozygous recessive offspring.



> Second generation (inbreeding) will reduce the number of heterozygous gene pairs in any given individual, and you may see some of the detrimental effects return.


Yes. Which is why inbreeding true-breeding lines works to eliminate homozygous recessive individuals. Which is why good breeders work with stock with known lineages.

You work off of the assumption that heterozygotes are more healthy than either homozygous dominant or recessive individuals. This is not true. To give _you_ a real world example, let's take sickle cell anemia.

Homozygous recessive individuals code for a mutant form of hemoglobin, which distorts red blood cells, resulting in poor oxygen transport in the blood.

Heterozygous individuals code for about half the mutant form of hemoglobin, and half the wild type form. They do not suffer from the constant symptoms of SCA, but have difficulties with prolonged periods of exercise and becoming short of breath very easily.

Homozygous dominant individuals only code for wild type hemoglobin, and have no such difficulties.

So the obvious answer to eliminating this disease isn't random mating and crossing heterozygotes, but selection against carriers of the recessive allele and mating only pairs of individuals who are homozygous dominant for the wild type allele.



> Hybrid vigor is very real.


Hybrid vigor is still a myth, and you've displayed an abysmal understanding of genetics.


----------



## FunkyRes (May 24, 2008)

OK - it's clear you do not comprehend what I wrote.



> Detrimental gene pairs do tend to be homozygous recessive, however they also tend to be lethal or effect an animal's ability to pass their genes on.


Yup - that's why they tend to be recessive. If they were dominant, they would be deselected from the gene pool as soon as the mutation occurred.

Most detrimental recessive genes - we can't visually identify even in homozygous form. Some like amel albinism are easy to spot - but many only have an effect on tendencies or if other factors are present.



> Wrong. When a heterozygote mates, they always have the same ratio of offspring: 0.25 A/A, 0.5 A/a and 0.25 a/a. Heterozygotes will always produce one out of four homozygous recessive offspring.


I don't think you read what I wrote.

If AA pairs with Aa - you can not get aa out of the first generation.

So - rat from population 1 at locus A has the gene pair Aa, and at locus B has the gene pair BB. Rat from population 2 at locus A has the gene pair AA and at B has the gene pair Bb.

Both carry a defective recessive gene - which may be expressed when paired with rats of their same gene pool. However, unless the allele exists in the other population - the most that will happen with the outcross is a double het - Aa Bb - you can not get aa or bb unless the defective gene is already in both populations.

In some cases the defective gene will be in both populations, but in many cases it won't - so the first generation can not express the traits for which the defective allele is not in both populations.

het to het pairing does have a probability of 25% expression, you are correct there - but I certainly never claimed otherwise, it is something I am extremely familiar with.



> Yes. Which is why inbreeding true-breeding lines works to eliminate homozygous recessive individuals. Which is why good breeders work with stock with known lineages.


inbreeding only works when you have extremely detailed information about the genotype of the animals. I expect only labs have access to that much detail, and then probably only with the PEW lines they work with.

I bet you'll find that no successful hobbyist breeder of quality rats goes more than 3 or 4 generations before they bring new blood in.

btw - I know I can dance circles around your understanding of genetics.
You like to make assumptions. Such as your assumption about my level of education.
Assumptions result in faulty conclusions.


----------



## JulesMichy (Apr 8, 2007)

FunkyRes said:


> I don't think you read what I wrote.
> 
> If AA pairs with Aa - you can not get aa out of the first generation.


No ****.



> So - rat from population 1 at locus A has the gene pair Aa, and at locus B has the gene pair BB. Rat from population 2 at locus A has the gene pair AA and at B has the gene pair Bb.
> 
> Both carry a defective recessive gene - which may be expressed when paired with rats of their same gene pool. However, unless the allele exists in the other population - the most that will happen with the outcross is a double het - Aa Bb - you can not get aa or bb unless the defective gene is already in both populations.
> 
> ...


In all that, you've managed to talk a lot without saying anything. You still haven't given any evidence at all that hybrid vigor exists, merely that random mating within a population is more likely to increase the number of recessive alleles than random mating between populations.

That still doesn't prove that heterozygotes are more healthy than homozygotes in most cases, or that selective breeding done by a breeder within a population is more detrimental than random mating.



> Inbreeding only works when you have extremely detailed information about the genotype of the animals. I expect only labs have access to that much detail, and then probably only with the PEW lines they work with.
> 
> I bet you'll find that no successful hobbyist breeder of quality rats goes more than 3 or 4 generations before they bring new blood in.


Ever hear of a pedigree? Looks a little something like this. Geneticists and breeders have been studying them for ages. By looking at a pedigree of even 3-4 generations, it can be relatively simple to deduce what combination of alleles a parent is a carrier of. You don't require a full genetic map of each and every individual to be able to predict what sort of offspring they'll produce.



> btw - I know I can dance circles around your understanding of genetics.
> You like to make assumptions. Such as your assumption about my level of education.
> Assumptions result in faulty conclusions.


From your various responses on this forum, particularly in the thread about the girl who wanted to allow her rat to swim, your responses have been reactionary, uneducated and show a distinct lack of experience. Your responses in this thread have shown you to possess a rudimentary understanding of science, which you then bandy about flagrantly as though you're proving something. I feel confident in my assumption that you're a pompous little twit who has gleaned a small amount of knowledge that she can't wait to try and impress people with.


----------



## KayRatz (Apr 5, 2007)

Jules, I don't see what you get out of name-calling. You're always starting pointless arguments and hijacking threads. Why do you do these things?


----------



## JulesMichy (Apr 8, 2007)

KayRatz said:


> Jules, I don't see what you get out of name-calling. You're always starting pointless arguments and hijacking threads. Why do you do these things?


Catharsis. :lol: I study hard, I work hard, and online forums provide lots of faceless, nameless people whose opinion of me doesn't matter, who I can work out all of my frustration on and never have to worry about a single, negative consequence on my life outside of the internet.

Plus it's fun.


----------



## CaptainFlow (May 16, 2007)

Fun? 

Yikes, that was one of the most painful, twisty, lame, picky, he-said she-said threads I've ever read. And I read the pet section in Craigslist, so I thought I'd read it all...

Go drink like a normal person. Seriously, bars and people IRL is fun, too.


----------



## JulesMichy (Apr 8, 2007)

CaptainFlow said:


> Go drink like a normal person. Seriously, bars and people IRL is fun, too.


My drinking partner is in Europe at the moment, actually. I know how to have a good time IRL. We do theme nights sometimes. Pirates, Stepford wives, corsets... We like to go to townie bars where old men fall all over themselves to buy the hot, young college girls drinks. Fun, fun.

Not nearly as therapeutic as getting some self-important douche on the internet worked up, though. Why do you think communities like Fandom Wank are so popular?


----------



## CeilingofStars (Apr 21, 2008)

OMG - I'm so sick of this. Everytime I try to read a lighthearted, fun thread, it gets overrun by someone who gets off on making people angry. You're just like Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church. It's called a personality disorder; you should probably get looked at for it.

Anyway, I suggest that anyone who is disturbed by this report it to the mods. Power in numbers and all that.

ETA: pm them @ modreport

As for the original subject, my baby Schnookums lays on her back only when she is in my hand. Then she likes to sprawl upside down with her head hanging off it. And she actually goes to sleep! It's painfully adorable.


----------



## SweetLittleDelilah (May 13, 2008)

Oh goodness...
as much as I love this forum, I HATE that there are some people on here who always start arguments. What's the point? Everyone has their own opinion that you're likely not going to change by being rude. 

Anyway.
I've never seen Delilah sleep on her back, so I feel left out now =[ Haha.


----------



## CaptainFlow (May 16, 2007)

SweetLittleDelilah said:


> I've never seen Delilah sleep on her back, so I feel left out now =[ Haha.


I barely even see my girls asleep, much less on their back! It's like they have some kind of a mommy-radar, and I can only beat it if I sneak into the room in the middle of the afternoon and leave right away...

You're not alone!


----------



## SweetLittleDelilah (May 13, 2008)

Haha. I've seen mine sleeping, but she usually wakes up as soon as I approach the cage. And I really want to photograph her asleep, too!!


----------



## FunkyRes (May 24, 2008)

I apologize for my participation in the arguing.

I haven't seen mine sleeping on their backs - but I've seen adults in pet stores do it on numerous occasions. My guess is glass cages they keep them in warm up from their body heat too fast.

One of my cats does it regularly though - and it is the funniest thing.


----------



## KayRatz (Apr 5, 2007)

I've never seen mine sleep on their backs.


----------



## Magpie (Mar 30, 2008)

Back to the topic.

I've never known a rat to sleep of his/her back, but it must be painfully cute ^_^ I can't imagine how they'd find it comfortable, I certainly don't!


----------



## Randi (May 25, 2008)

I had a rat who just passed a little while ago who constantly slept on his back or his side, with his legs either straight up in the air or straight out to his side. He scared me half to death every time.

One of my newbies, I've noticed, does the exact same thing. He lays in the funniest positions I've ever seen. He is such a character.


----------



## twitch (Jan 4, 2007)

i am very sorry that i did not see this sooner. jules-your conduct is unacceptable. we are not here for you to abuse. stop. 

i am locking this thread so all that mess does not need to be read but will start up one with the same topic: rats sleeping on their backs. 

again, sorry for letting this get so out of hand.


----------

