Buf and caramel from one clutch

[slangenbroed]

BECAUSE YOU NEVER USED A HOMOZYGOUS CARAMEL WHEN YOU DID THE ONE PAIRING YOU TESTED THIS AGAINST CARAMEL. :headbang:

No i bred that one female the grandma (the furst buf) to a amel het caramel becouse there where people that say it was caramel,i did this bred first to prove that it isn't caramel and second i had nothing other in my collection that was homo caramel to bred with.And the outcome was buf just like ma ,normals,amels and bufamels ( orange ) and you tel me now that this is not dominant and have you lookt afther the breedingresults from the last years??????? Where are the butters and caramels.And now a bred one off the direct son's from that grandma to a striped het caramel,now there is caramel buff and normals:grin01:

 

[slangenbroed]

In this post, you stated:

"7 years ago a bred a amel x normal het amel outcome NORMALS -AMELS AND ONE ANIMAL THAT WAS DIFFERENT Brownyellow its was a clutch off 14 eggs"

Which means it is not Dominant / Co-Dominant. If it were, one of the parents of the original Brown-Yellow/Buff would have been Brown-Yellow/Buff.

In that same post you also state:

Never haerd about a spontainius mutation?????????????

 

[slangenbroed]

In that same post you also state:

"Orange x Buf = amels-orange-normals and buf"

If "Orange" was the Amelanistic version of "Buff" you wouldn't get Amels and Normals from Orange x Buff if it were Dominant / Co-Dominant.[/QUOTE]

Yes you can get normal and amel from that bred

Orange = Bnaa
x
Buf het amel = Bna

The punnet square is

Ba na
Ba BBaa Bnaa
B BBa Bna
na Bnaa nnaa
n Bna nna

Outcom is
BBaa Orange with the double buf gene on both allels
Bnaa Orange with the single gene
BBa Buf with the double gene het amel
Bna Buf single het amel
nnaa Amel
nna Normal het amel

Sorry but this is the results and the breeding say exakt this as the punnet say it is .oke:
sorry but first look about it before you telling things

 

[tyflier]

Tbtusk-

I wasn't trying to imply that the photo was shopped in an effort to make the snakes look better, or different or whatever. I was saying that the photo was shopped and the levels adjusted. It was brightened and maybe sharpened with increased contrast. Probably, this photo was taken in ambient lighting with no flash to get truer colors, but it came out dark. So a quick trip to photoshop to brighten and adjust the levels so you can actually see the snakes. I wasn't trying to imply falsification, just adjustments.

Jan-
I'm sorry, I tried to read your site. No offense, as I know English is not your first language, but I really have a hard time understanding what you are saying through reading due to grammatical and spelling errors. I mean no offense, it's just really difficult for me to follow you here or at your site with the errors.

With that said...I wish you the best. I really do hope you are able to prove what you have is what you think it is.

 

[TripleMoonsExotic]

No i bred that one female the grandma (the furst buf) to a amel het caramel becouse there where people that say it was caramel,i did this bred first to prove that it isn't caramel and second i had nothing other in my collection that was homo caramel to bred with.And the outcome was buf just like ma ,normals,amels and bufamels ( orange ) and you tel me now that this is not dominant and have you lookt afther the breedingresults from the last years??????? Where are the butters and caramels.And now a bred one off the direct son's from that grandma to a striped het caramel,now there is caramel buff and normals:grin01:

Read post #15 again as to why that one pairing you did with a heterozygous Caramel could have produced no Caramels/Butters.

Never haerd about a spontainius mutation?????????????

Do you really buy that? I can see someone like Rich have a "spontaneous mutation" pop out of the millions of snakes he has produced in his lifetime...But it's like a billion to one chance.

Your "punnet square" is confusing as all heck and zero help. You are right though, I didn't say correctly what I was trying to. HOWEVER, by breeding to Normals you can determine if a particular snake is homozygous versus heterozygous (referring to Dominant here)...If you never get a homozygous Dominant (which will produce ALL "Buffs") with all of these pairings you do, it's not dominant...

Something else that doesn't make sense...In that thread I linked you said:

"Orange x Orange=100% orange"

Well, how is that possible if we're referring to Dominant? Are these two "Oranges" you used homozygous for "Buff"? Are these two F1 offspring from the original female? If so, they can't be homozygous.

 

[slangenbroed]

Jan-
I'm sorry, I tried to read your site. No offense, as I know English is not your first language, but I really have a hard time understanding what you are saying through reading due to grammatical and spelling errors. I mean no offense, it's just really difficult for me to follow you here or at your site with the errors.

With that said...I wish you the best. I really do hope you are able to prove what you have is what you think it is.[/QUOTE]

Yes i now my englisch is not the best i got it on school more than 28 yesrs ago,and it is difficult or me to explane everything.And yes the pics are adjust a little but only to make sure that the colours are as truly as possible.
And thanks for the whissing.
If you have questions i like to answer them as good as i can

Greating

Jan

 

[Jynx]

I'm by no means going to start in on an argument that I have no place, but I do have one question...

Why didn't you do any breeding trials with a homozygous Caramel? It would seem to me that, as a pretty experienced breeder, you would know about the extreme level of variety when breeding het animals... there is absolutely no guarantee. Hell, there isn't even a standard you can go by just to give yourself a better idea of what you could get. Het breedings are entirely too unpredictable, and I have to assume that you should know that. As someone who is trying to prove out a new gene, it just seems like a really bad idea.

That being said, why did you chose to breed to a het Caramel, instead of a homo Caramel when that would probably give you most of the proof you would need?

 

[slangenbroed]

Read post #15 again as to why that one pairing you did with a heterozygous Caramel could have produced no Caramels/Butters. I don't now what you ment



Do you really buy that? I can see someone like Rich have a "spontaneous mutation" pop out of the millions of snakes he has produced in his lifetime...But it's like a billion to one chance.

A mutation is always a spontainius thing you can't push it,it happens and i think it can hits everybody.Do you think that al the new colours are comming from the same people,it like to win the jacpot more than ones.But the thing is the greater breeders will belief better than the little ones.

Your "punnet square" is confusing as all heck and zero help. You are right though, I didn't say correctly what I was trying to. HOWEVER, by breeding to Normals you can determine if a particular snake is homozygous versus heterozygous (referring to Dominant here)...If you never get a homozygous Dominant (which will produce ALL "Buffs") with all of these pairings you do, it's not dominant...
Maybee i have animals with the double gene you cal it homozygous but in the dominant you cal it single and double becouse there is no hetrozygous in a dominant gene.You are or you aren't a buf.The punnet square was getting together at posting

Orange = Bnaa ( B = the buf gene n = the normal gene and aa = amel )
x
Buf het amel = Bna

...........Ba........na
Ba........BBaa.....Bna
B..........BBa......Bna
na........Bnaa.....nnaa
n..........Bna......nna

i hope it looks better now ore go to www.slangenbroed.nl under buf you ca
n get a exel file where the hole story is .Something else that doesn't make sense...In that thread I linked you said:

"Orange x Orange=100% orange"

Well, how is that possible if we're referring to Dominant? Are these two "Oranges" you used homozygous for "Buff"? Are these two F1 offspring from the original female? Yes the are and have the single gene,but in the orange F2 offspring there could be a double gene,but testing will tell us more ( one female has eggs with a ultramel, the other animals will bred nex year)
and the outcome from the orange x orange where orange but the clutch was only 6 eggs and was smal

Why can't you belief the dominant thing i tested it agains several animals who never had anything to do with this project and still in the F1 i find buf back
Agains Lavender,normal,phantom,ultramel and in every bred the f1 shows buf and when there was amel in the game orange to.

 

[TripleMoonsExotic]

I don't now what you ment

What do you meant you don't understand. Do you understand genetics at all? When you use a het opposed to a homo, you greatly decrease the chances of producing a particular morph. So one breeding to a het doesn't discount that particular morph.

Maybee i have animals with the double gene you cal it homozygous but in the dominant you cal it single and double becouse there is no hetrozygous in a dominant gene.

Wrong. Using homozygous and heterozygous is the correct terminology. Look up what the two words mean.

Yes the are and have the single gene,but in the orange F2 offspring there could be a double gene,but testing will tell us more ( one female has eggs with a ultramel, the other animals will bred nex year) and the outcome from the orange x orange where orange but the clutch was only 6 eggs and was smal

Yes to which? They are F1 from the original female (which would mean they can not produce 100% Oranges if it's Dominant) or have you proved those two Homozygous for "Buff" by breeding them to a Normal and producing 100% Buff?

Why can't you belief the dominant thing

Because you aren't testing it against the right things in the right manner to provide it without a shadow of a doubt...and they look like Normals, Caramels and Amels!

 

[slangenbroed]

I'm by no means going to start in on an argument that I have no place, but I do have one question...

Why didn't you do any breeding trials with a homozygous Caramel? It would seem to me that, as a pretty experienced breeder, you would know about the extreme level of variety when breeding het animals... there is absolutely no guarantee. Hell, there isn't even a standard you can go by just to give yourself a better idea of what you could get. Het breedings are entirely too unpredictable, and I have to assume that you should know that. As someone who is trying to prove out a new gene, it just seems like a really bad idea.

That being said, why did you chose to breed to a het Caramel, instead of a homo Caramel when that would probably give you most of the proof you would need?

First you never started an argument, i like to share this not to discussed because i now what i have,and with ore without caramel the buf is coming back in all the breedings i have done, but in the bred to this animal normalstriped het caramel i bred my f1 orange male and i didn't now that he was hetero caramel ( pos maybe)And in this clutch there was normal caramel and buf and one animal that has something from buf and from caramel, and i don't now if that is a bufcaramel in theory i could but the planning was to bring striped into this project,that bufcaramel thing we will see in a couple off month.
Why i didn't bred to homo caramel i don't have one next year i have a caramelmotley to bring into this project But onestly i think that there is nothing to win ( in colours ),only the motley thing is maybe interesting.

 

[slangenbroed]

What do you meant you don't understand. Do you understand genetics at all? When you use a het opposed to a homo, you greatly decrease the chances of producing a particular morph. So one breeding to a het doesn't discount that particular morph.

Yes i understand genetics,i bred more then 15 years parrots in several mutations and genetis ( reccesif,dominant,and genderbound)And in this bred you are correct, but i never want to getting caramel i even not now that this male was het caramel i only want to bring striped into the project.The rest was agains lavender phantom and ultramel.

Wrong. Using homozygous and heterozygous is the correct terminology. Look up what the two words mean.Explane me why a buf that looks different ( in my vision a morph ) is hetrozygous . Hetero say i carrying a colour but i don't let see it.A normal hetero amel is looking normal not amel.!!!!!!!



Yes to which? They are F1 from the original female (which would mean they can not produce 100% Oranges if it's Dominant) or have you proved those two Homozygous for "Buff" by breeding them to a Normal and producing 100% Buff?Now the are carrying the single gene not the double gene.Only in the F2 offspring there could be a animal that produce 100% buf agains anything i put him ore her with



Because you aren't testing it against the right things in the right manner to provide it without a shadow of a doubt...and they look like Normals, Caramels and Amels! I tested it agains lavender,phantom,ultramel normalstriped and in all the clutches there was buf and when amel was in the game even orange.What must i do more??????????

In 2009 i will do orange het lavender x Normal het opaal and when she is good to a ultramel het lavender.And testing the group of orange from the F2 agains other animals to see if there is the double gene.
I do this for hobby not for living!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[TripleMoonsExotic]

Explane me why a buf that looks different ( in my vision a morph ) is hetrozygous . Hetero say i carrying a colour but i don't let see it.A normal hetero amel is looking normal not amel.!!!!!!!

Obviously you didn't look up the two words to learn their definitions...

Heterozygous: having dissimilar pairs of genes for any hereditary characteristic.

Homozygous: having identical pairs of genes for any given pair of hereditary characteristics.

Now...In the definitions...
Do you see anything about what it looks like or does it talk about pairs of genes?

Now the are carrying the single gene not the double gene.Only in the F2 offspring there could be a animal that produce 100% buf agains anything i put him ore her with

Ok, that's what I was asking. Now...Since the two "Oranges" are Heterozygous...How exactly did you produce all "Oranges" if it were dominant?

I tested it agains lavender,phantom,ultramel normalstriped and in all the clutches there was buf and when amel was in the game even orange.What must i do more??????????

Please explain how any of these pairings prove that what you are seeing is not het Caramel influence?

 

[slangenbroed]

Obviously you didn't look up the two words to learn their definitions...

Heterozygous: having dissimilar pairs of genes for any hereditary characteristic.

Homozygous: having identical pairs of genes for any given pair of hereditary characteristics.

Now...In the definitions...
Do you see anything about what it looks like or does it talk about pairs of genes?
It talks about pair of genes a understand that , but sorry i am from holland and it is not easy to tell ore write it in englisch down and i don,t have a dictionary at my site?( i stay at the single and double gene SORRY , you may call it hetero and homo and i now what you mean )



Ok, that's what I was asking. Now...Since the two "Oranges" are Heterozygous...How exactly did you produce all "Oranges" if it were dominant From this clutch ????? ore from all clutches???????



Please explain how any of these pairings prove that what you are seeing is not het Caramel influence?

Simple
The first animal ( the grandma ) was from amel x normal het amel one from that clutch was different.That was the first ever born animal,that i bred to a amel het caramel if she was caramel ore het caramel i must produced caramel and butters but now i bred normal amel buf and orange the f1 one orange male one orange femal and two buf female.In 2003 ore 2004 i belief i bred this orange male agains the three females outcoms normal,amel,buf and orange nothing else ( and if they are het caramel influense there must be caramel in that clutches but now there wasn't any, and i now what caramel look like at that moment a bred caramel x caramel and het caramel)Now in 2008 i bred that F1 male Orange x Normalstriped het caramel ( and the orange is het caramel but i didn;t now that until now )There is caramel and buf and normal in this clutch.

Greatings Jan
its here 2:14 and i go to bed until tommorow

 

[Joejr14]

Simple
The first animal ( the grandma ) was from amel x normal het amel one from that clutch was different.That was the first ever born animal,that i bred to a amel het caramel if she was caramel ore het caramel i must produced caramel and butters but now i bred normal amel buf and orange the f1 one orange male one orange femal and two buf female.In 2003 ore 2004 i belief i bred this orange male agains the three females outcoms normal,amel,buf and orange nothing else ( and if they are het caramel influense there must be caramel in that clutches but now there wasn't any, and i now what caramel look like at that moment a bred caramel x caramel and het caramel)Now in 2008 i bred that F1 male Orange x Normalstriped het caramel ( and the orange is het caramel but i didn;t now that until now )There is caramel and buf and normal in this clutch.

Greatings Jan
its here 2:14 and i go to bed until tommorow

Okay so you hatched a 'buf' out from an amel x normal het amel, correct? And buf is what, codom or dominant, right? Do you see how that doesn't make sense?

If buf is codom or dominant one of the parents must have been a buf.

 

[slangenbroed]

Okay so you hatched a 'buf' out from an amel x normal het amel, correct? And buf is what, codom or dominant, right? Do you see how that doesn't make sense?

If buf is codom or dominant one of the parents must have been a buf.

Why can't nature make a mistake , a spontainius mistake.Do you belief from all the new genes the parrents where hetero for that gene??????

 

[Joejr14]

Why can't nature make a mistake , a spontainius mistake.Do you belief from all the new genes the parrents where hetero for that gene??????

I believe in a principle called 'Occam's razor'. And by that principle what is more common....the normal or amel being het for caramel, or you had the one a in a trillion luck of hatching out a random genetic mutation?

 

[TripleMoonsExotic]

i stay at the single and double gene SORRY , you may call it hetero and homo and i now what you mean

I will continue using heterozygous and homozygous...Because it's the correct use of the terminology.

The first animal ( the grandma ) was from amel x normal het amel one from that clutch was different.That was the first ever born animal,that i bred to a amel het caramel if she was caramel ore het caramel i must produced caramel and butters but now i bred normal amel buf and orange the f1 one orange male one orange femal and two buf female.In 2003 ore 2004 i belief i bred this orange male agains the three females outcoms normal,amel,buf and orange nothing else ( and if they are het caramel influense there must be caramel in that clutches but now there wasn't any, and i now what caramel look like at that moment a bred caramel x caramel and het caramel)Now in 2008 i bred that F1 male Orange x Normalstriped het caramel ( and the orange is het caramel but i didn;t now that until now )There is caramel and buf and normal in this clutch.

And it's been said (see posts #10, 15, 20 & 29 again) that because you used a heterozygous for one pairing...It does not completely discount Caramel from being at work. What you need to do is take the original Buff female and breed her to a homozygous Caramel. Obviously Caramel is floating around in these snakes because you produced one.

 

[Drizzt80]

Right now, I believe your "buf" is a Caramel het Amel (and your "orange" is an Amel het Caramel). Your breeding "trials", due to their inaccuracy, do not prove otherwise at this point. You appear too busy trying to cross "buff" into other morphs when you have not yet proven what "buf" is. In my opinion you appear too concerned with claiming you have a new gene, when in fact you have so far proven nothing.

I would suggest Breeding your "buf" to a Caramel NOT het Amel. I would predict all Caramels with 25% (or less) of them looking "buf" (because they are Caramels het Amel).

I wish you the best of luck. Unfortunately, you could have done yourself better service by breeding your "buf" to a Caramel 4 years ago when it was first suggested. :shrugs:

D80

 

[susang]

I have read this thread and the linked ones with interest, I know nothing about snakes genetics. I do see a major problem with all of this, it sounds like the OP wants to click their red shoes, or wave a wand and say what he wants is what it is. Changing names and saying het homo who cares (sorry that may not be exactly correct on that quote) well it does make a differance, TO THE POTENTIAL BUYER.
We have many people who come on here i.d. my snake, all well and good, but myabe not the whole picture. Now you come along and sell an 'orange' or 'buf' snake to someone. They come on here and say but the breeder said this is what it is and I paid $250.00 for this snake and it's orange. Then they do the homework and see no other breeders list orange snakes, but they all have a snake that looks like theirs and oops it's $50.00.
Having said all of that some of your original snakes ?? look a lot like my Creamsicle and your buf babies look like the rootbeers I produced this year. You say you have no Creamsicle, but what if that first one was sold to you with the wrong i.d. I know to this day the place I got my Creamsicle refuse to acknowledge they are a hybrid, they now sell yellow albinos????

 

[tyflier]

Jan-
IMO, you need to go back to square one and breed your original "buf" with a homozygous caramel het nothing(if possible). If you have to beg, borrow, steal, or buy a Caramel, this is the ONLY way, at this point, to clear the muddy waters of your breeding trials. Using all these different snakes and different morphs and only testing against a het. caramel one time is not a breeding trial. I simply don't see how any of your breeding trials over the last 4 years have been remotely conclusive.

And JoeJr is right...if "buf" were dominant or co-dom, one of the parents of that first animal would have been "buf". But you admit the very first one was born in that first clutch...which means it can't be a dominant trait.

If I were you, and certainly I am not, I would stop concentrating on getting different genes in the mix and "proving" it is a new gene to us, and start concentrating on testing the original animal(s) against single homozygous traits to see what it is, exactly, that you are dealing with. Along with this, I would concentrate on getting factual data for each breeding using accepted clinical terminology and photo progressions to support it. This is the only proper way to go about proving a new gene.

As well...there is a reason why the "big breeders" have an easier time having new genes accepted...it's because they are showing a completely different animal supported by several years of concrete data. Here, you are showing us animals that look exactly like caramels, and telling us they aren't caramels without ever having tested the gene against a caramel animal, and without having any sort of clear testing program in place to "prove" what you are telling us. Your breeding trials are muddy and unclear, and your choice to use heterozygous animals as a testing platform makes the situation incredibly doubtful to us on the other side of the computer screen.

I mean no offense, but I certainly hope you can understand why there is so much doubt shadowing this conversation. It's not because of who you are or how many snakes you have. It's because your breeding trials are unclear and inconclusive.