• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Buff and orange x ?????????????????

Oh, and so your next pairings. I think getting amel out of the way completely would be a good idea. Besides that I would test this gene, probably once using buffs, and once using oranges, against all known hypos, including ultra. You've doen a caramel test, but I would like to see a buff bred to a caramel with NO hets, and the same done with an orange. Have fun with all that!
 
There are a lot of interesting pairings that could be done; one would be to cross two buffs (or oranges) het caramel and see whether buff masks caramel, caramel masks buff, and/or if caramel is allelic to buff.

If buff is not allelic and masks caramel, you should get 1/16 caramels (1/4 chance of not being buff * 1/4 chance of being caramel), 3/4 buff, the rest normal (3/16 ??).
If buff is allelic and masks caramel, you should get 3/4 buff, 1/4 caramel, no normals (the snakes can either inherit buff or caramel)
If buff is not allelic and is masked by caramel, you should get 1/4 caramels, 3/16 normals (1/4 chance of not being buff * 3/4 chance not being homo caramel), and, uh, 9/16 buffs? Better still, breed buff het caramel to caramel... I'll let you do the math ^-^
Personally, I kind of doubt it'd be allelic, but the phenotype is a little like caramel so I wonder if maybe it's a different mutation of the same gene. More likely a different protein in the same pathway though?

I'd also be really curious to see it paired with any of the aneries (Anery A, charcoal, lavender), as these all mask butter. Would they mask "buff"?

Man, I wish there were some in the US XD A dominant gene sure would be fun to play with :D
 
A lot interests me about this gene. Usually when I think of 'Caramel,' I think of a Hyperxanthic gene. But in reality, the gene is not just Hyperxanthic but also Hypo to Anerythristic in its effects. Buff, on the other hand, appears to be only hyperxanthic, and may serve as a truely hyperxanthic gene in how it affects; similar to how amel truely is Amelanistic, but how there is debate over whether Anerythristic isn't simply (or complexly) hypermelanistic. *Interesting thoughts* :crazy02:
 
tbtusk said:
So we have the Buff locus now. My first big question was, what are oranges genetically? Now I hope this hasn't bee answered, and I missed it, but I think I have an answer, and hopefully the answer. I believe an orange is an amel het/homo buff (that is amel buff). I won't go through all the breedings, but every single pairing you have done makes sense when this is true and buff is dominant.
Click to expand...

That's right. The confusing thing is that "Buff Amel" was given the name "Orange" instead of being defined as a Buff Amel first. Sort of like saying you have a Butter without first saying that Butter is composed of Amel and Caramel.

Granted, I would personally prefer a name like "Dominant Xanthic" or "Dominant Hyperxanthic" to describe the gene itself, as it increases yellow pigment and at least those two names describe what the gene is doing - and then start naming the morphs created with combinations :)
 
Okay, thanks for confirming.

For now, yes, I agree we should be calling this hopefully new gene by a name that describes its affect on the animal. Once it is well understood a million trade names will start popping up, so no need for that right now.
 
panda said:
The whole Buff thing is interesting. I find it strange that the Buff x lavender produced Buffs. As you say Buff is either dominant or there is something strange going on that you stumbled upon. Perhaps the Bufff has Ultra in the mix. I would do this breeding test to eliminate that idea.
Click to expand...
i think there is no ultra involved but the interesting thing to do is orange agains ultramel to produce ultraorange and that is what i try nex year.
 
tbtusk said:
I've got a few ideas. First off, it seems this has been posted elsewhere, and as of right now I have only read this thread, so sorry if I'm missing something.

I just went back and checked all of your breedings and I think this works. You have been talking about the morph "buff." Lets say there is a dominant (as you've been saying) gene called "buff." now, it can't be on the amel locus because, if this were true, a buff het amel could not exist, and so your first pairing that originated these animals wouldn't be possible. So we have the Buff locus now. My first big question was, what are oranges genetically? is a buff and amel in one animal. Now I hope this hasn't bee answered, and I missed it, but I think I have an answer, and hopefully the answer. I believe an orange is an amel het/homo buff (that is amel buff). I won't go through all the breedings, but every single pairing you have done makes sense when this is true and buff is dominant.

the only pairing that messed me up for a moment was your orange X orange pairing. In this case one of your oranges was homo buff, as well as amel. That will result in all hatchlings being homo amel and at least het buff, which means they are expressing both traits. All of them would be oranges, just what you got.

So I think you do have a new gene! Congrats! I would like to see someone do some work with the amel genes in both emorys and corns, and caramel, but I'm pretty convinced your right about your snakes. Please not whit emory becaus then it is mixt up and not pure enymore. Speaking of which, I wonder how hard it would be for me to grab a pair from you when I'm in Europe this coming summer...
Click to expand...
Yes there are some avalible orange from 2006
 
tbtusk said:
Oh, and so your next pairings. I think getting amel out of the way completely would be a good idea. Besides that I would test this gene, probably once using buffs, and once using oranges, against all known hypos, including ultra. You've doen a caramel test, but I would like to see a buff bred to a caramel with NO hets, and the same done with an orange. Have fun with all that!
Click to expand...

Thank you i wil bred them next year agains ultramel and phantom in 2009 i hope to see what it doe sin lavander i have orange het lavander bred this year
 
slangenbroed said:
Thank you i wil bred them next year agains ultramel and phantom in 2009 i hope to see what it doe sin lavander i have orange het lavander bred this year
Click to expand...

Ohh, Buff Opals sound yummy.... Maybe when I'm in college I'll suck up the shipping costs.... :grabbit:
 
Topazfyre said:
A lot interests me about this gene. Usually when I think of 'Caramel,' I think of a Hyperxanthic gene. But in reality, the gene is not just Hyperxanthic but also Hypo to Anerythristic in its effects. Buff, on the other hand, appears to be only hyperxanthic, and may serve as a truely hyperxanthic gene in how it affects; similar to how amel truely is Amelanistic, but how there is debate over whether Anerythristic isn't simply (or complexly) hypermelanistic. *Interesting thoughts* :crazy02:
Click to expand...

i think you hit the nail on his head
but it is a long way to prove this firs it took 7 years to come at this point and now the breedings agains ultramel and the involving in lavender will hopefully mak e sence
 
Of course no Ultra...

or you would have seen Ultramels a long time ago. I wasn't thinking. It is still interesting that the Buff came out of the Lavender breeding. Like others hae said, to prove a dominant gene you would have to breed it to a wild (normal) corn. If you get Buffs, it is dominant.
 
panda said:
or you would have seen Ultramels a long time ago. I wasn't thinking. It is still interesting that the Buff came out of the Lavender breeding. Like others hae said, to prove a dominant gene you would have to breed it to a wild (normal) corn. If you get Buffs, it is dominant.
Click to expand...

For the record
When i put a amel to lavender outcome is normal het amel and lavender,this is becouse amel to lavender is the same as amel to normal.
Why must i have a normal witout hets it makes no sence to me
i prove this to amel het caramel to lavender het amel and lavender the outcome is the same when there is no amel involved buff and with amel orange
 
slangenbroed said:
Why must i have a normal witout hets it makes no sence to me
i prove this to amel het caramel to lavender het amel and lavender the outcome is the same when there is no amel involved buff and with amel orange
Click to expand...

I think the reason that they want a breeding to a normal without hets is so there is no way anyone can say, 'Oh, but you never know if it's just interacting with another gene.' Personally, I think that there have been so many breeding trials already that this step isn't really necessary.
 
The first couples are set
Orange male x ultamel female
Orange male x Buf ( the grandma the fist )female
Orange male x Buf 2x
Phantom male x Orange female
Orange male x lavender
 
slangenbroed said:
The first couples are set
Orange male x ultamel female
Orange male x Buf ( the grandma the fist )female
Orange male x Buf 2x
Phantom male x Orange female
Orange male x lavender
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "set " . Are they already together for breeding or is this the breedingset you plan to do ?

I think I'll go for the ultramelcombo too and for snowstripe and sunkissed if possible .
 
slangenbroed said:
mvervest said:
What do you mean by "set " . Are they already together for breeding or is this the breedingset you plan to do ?

I still have a buff female to put agains your oketee male ?????????
Click to expand...

I have an okeetee male that's het lava , so the offspring will be poss het lava but maybe we can see the influence of the lava to the new gene ????
Maybe we can do an Icemale (lava+anery) to the buff female ??
Or ......... suggestions ??? Sunkissedmale , anery diluted motley/stripe ?
The last one should be interesting to cross back to the hatchlings of the snowstripecombination with my orange x snowstripe .
I can get on breedingloan a pure non het normal male from a Belgian friend , he has his first couple normals 12 y old and paired up never got any than normals .
Click to expand...
 
mvervest said:
slangenbroed said:
I have an okeetee male that's het lava , so the offspring will be poss het lava but maybe we can see the influence of the lava to the new gene ????
Maybe we can do an Icemale (lava+anery) to the buff female ??
Or ......... suggestions ??? Sunkissedmale , anery diluted motley/stripe ?
The last one should be interesting to cross back to the hatchlings of the snowstripecombination with my orange x snowstripe .
I can get on breedingloan a pure non het normal male from a Belgian friend , he has his first couple normals 12 y old and paired up never got any than normals .
Click to expand...

The icemale is interesting.Outcome is normal het lava and buf het lava possible het amel becouse the buf is het amel.:)
The sunkissed is iteresting to:)
The normal gives only buf and normals, i don't have to prove this gene i now
its there and how it works why put normal into it i don't see the step forward.
Every thing is interesting becouse its new i have lavander in it now and next year i hope ultra and charcoal with hypo a ( from phantom )
:shrugs::shrugs::shrugs:
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top