• 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.

complicate genetic combination

M

Mumi

Mumi
Hi - my first post here...

Excuse my english, I come from switzerland... ;-)

Now - I have crossed a male ghost (must be het. amelanistic!?) and a female amelanistic bloodred.
The hachlings are natural coloured and amelanistics (a lot of amels, not possible, if the ghost male is not het for amel - right?)

So the Hachlings must be:
- het amelanistic, het anerythristic, het. hypomel., het. blood
- amelanistic, het. anerythristic, het. hypomel., het blood

Is this right until here?

Now my big question:
Is it right, that if I ccross 1.1 amel, het aner, het hypo, het blood, there can result no blood, no hyopmel, no hypo blood, now ghost, no ghost blood...

(i tested this combination with 2 genetic calculators and both showed the same results)

but when I cross 1 amel, het... with a normal coloured het...
or 1.1 normal, het...
there can result every combinations (amel blood, blood, aner. blood, ghost blood, snow blood......)

complicate question, I know - but please can a genetic specialist help me - it is important for me to know, which ones I should hold back.

Beat regards from Switzerland!

Mumi
 
i would hold back a trio of normals het ....

but then i am not keen on amels so maybe if you want amels to be produced you could go for a male normal het..... and one or two females which are normals het..... and a female amel het......

that is what i would do.

those calculations are correct by the way.
 
Those calculations are correct. Quite simply, you cannot produce hypo-anything, because you are pairing 1.1 amel het. This means 100% of the offspring will be amel. Amel masks hypo...logically so. You cannot reduce melanin(hypo), when melanin is not present(amel).

You can, however, produce Fire(amel/blood), Avalanche(amel/blood/anery), Hybino(amel/hypo) Snow(amel/anery), and Coral Snow(amel/hypo/anery), all poss. het. for the other traits.

And yes...using only 1 homozygous amel animals will give you the chance to express the hypo trait, allowing for granite, ghost, hypo blood, and all of the combos with hypo that would otherwise be masked by amel.
 
tyflier said:
Those calculations are correct. Quite simply, you cannot produce hypo-anything, because you are pairing 1.1 amel het. This means 100% of the offspring will be amel. Amel masks hypo...logically so. You cannot reduce melanin(hypo), when melanin is not present(amel).
Click to expand...

Actually, they will produce hypo animals, there just won't any visible hypos as you correctly point out amel masks hypo. But the hypo gene will still be floating around so hypo animals will be produced - just identification of them will be next to impossible (except for breeding trials).
 
Thanks for all your answers! Does I understand corretly: if the male ghost would not be het amel, the F2 generation could have every combinations incl. hypo, with all the possibilitys? But because he is het for amel, the hypo gene will be masked when I cross 1.1 amel, het.?
 
TripleMoonsExotic said:
Out of curiosity...Where is this coming from all of a sudden? I've seen this in quite a few posts. What happened to the term "Hypoamel"? It is a combination of Hypo & Amel, not Hypo & Albino.
Click to expand...

I believe it is coming from the morphs for Boidae. The term Hybino seems to emanate from those cultivars. Least from a general perusal.
 
TripleMoonsExotic said:
Out of curiosity...Where is this coming from all of a sudden? I've seen this in quite a few posts. What happened to the term "Hypoamel"? It is a combination of Hypo & Amel, not Hypo & Albino.
Click to expand...

Well...since "albino" and "amel" are genetically the same thing, and since "hybino" is used to describe the combination of hypo and albino in almost every other species of snake being produced...why would it be "all of a sudden"? Better yet...why would it change to "hypoamel"? Just because it is called "amel" in cornsnakes and "albino" in every other species doesn't change the fact that an amel cornsnake is an albino...

It's also listed in the 2008 CMG--"Hybino-Genetic combination of amel & hypo".

Afterall...it is the combination of albino and hypo...:rolleyes::sidestep:
 
Saffleur said:
I believe it is coming from the morphs for Boidae. The term Hybino seems to emanate from those cultivars. Least from a general perusal.
Click to expand...

tyflier said:
Well...since "albino" and "amel" are genetically the same thing, and since "hybino" is used to describe the combination of hypo and albino in almost every other species of snake being produced...why would it be "all of a sudden"? Better yet...why would it change to "hypoamel"? Just because it is called "amel" in cornsnakes and "albino" in every other species doesn't change the fact that an amel cornsnake is an albino...

It's also listed in the 2008 CMG--"Hybino-Genetic combination of amel & hypo".

Afterall...it is the combination of albino and hypo...:rolleyes::sidestep:
Click to expand...

OK...so we're following the lead of the boid keepers in the naming of morphs. Just inform me ahead of time when we start calling something "super" and using "codominant" where it shouldn't be. ;) And just an FYI, the CMG is not the bible of naming corn morphs. It's a wonderful guide and does list the names commonly used, but should not decide and dictate to the corn world what a morph SHOULD be called. And IMO, a ghost can also be called a hybino, as can an ultramel, ultra anery, lavamel, ice, etc since they are also combinations of an "albino" and a "hypo".
 
Mumi said:
Thanks for all your answers! Does I understand corretly: if the male ghost would not be het amel, the F2 generation could have every combinations incl. hypo, with all the possibilitys? But because he is het for amel, the hypo gene will be masked when I cross 1.1 amel, het.?
Click to expand...

If you cross an Amel to another Amel (even if they're known het hypo) you are unlikely to be able to tell which of the offspring are homozygous hypo. This isn't because their Ghost parent was het amel - it's because Amel, as a rule, HIDES hypo. Two visual Amel animals can't produce ANY offspring that are not at LEAST visual amel.

So if you want non-Amel offspring (i.e. you want to make a Granite as well as being able to make an Avalanche) you need at least one parent to be not visually albino.
 
Susan said:
OK...so we're following the lead of the boid keepers in the naming of morphs. Just inform me ahead of time when we start calling something "super" and using "codominant" where it shouldn't be. ;) And just an FYI, the CMG is not the bible of naming corn morphs. It's a wonderful guide and does list the names commonly used, but should not decide and dictate to the corn world what a morph SHOULD be called. And IMO, a ghost can also be called a hybino, as can an ultramel, ultra anery, lavamel, ice, etc since they are also combinations of an "albino" and a "hypo".
Click to expand...

I wasn't saying that we should, just stating where I believed it was creeping in from is all.

Sorry if I misled you with my words Susan. I prefer keeping things as they are...
 
If you cross an Amel to another Amel (even if they're known het hypo) you are unlikely to be able to tell which of the offspring are homozygous hypo. This isn't because their Ghost parent was het amel - it's because Amel, as a rule, HIDES hypo. Two visual Amel animals can't produce ANY offspring that are not at LEAST visual amel.
Click to expand...

That's not my question.
fact seems to be (genetic calculator) that if my ghost male not would be het amel, 100% of the of the ofsprings would be normal, het. all - hypo, amel, blood, aner...

now, because he is het for amel, the amel ofsprings in F2 generation will something like cover the hypo gene also is like binded with the diffused gene (no hypos, no bloods...)

because, usually if you have for exemple 1.1 amel, het. aner, you also have 2 amels in phenotyp but you recive anery's, snows...

There must be some reasen else with the hypo gene, they are all het for hypo.
No idea if yiu understand, what I mean :-D
 
Yes, Ghost X Amel would normally produce Normal het for all the babies.

However, if you breed an Amel het Anery to another Amel het Anery, you will never get a baby that is NOT visually Amel - even if it "adds on" Anery to produce Snow. You can only get Amels OR Snows out of that - never visual Anery that are not Amel also.

So the Amel het Hypo crossed to another Amel het Hypo will produce ALL Amels - but some of those Amels will be Hypo-Amels (and you can't really tell them from the normal Amels because a hypo-amel looks like a normal Amel).
 
Argh, no edit ability. My first sentence should have read:

"Yes, Ghost X Amel would normally produce Normal het for all the parent's visual genes: Hypo, Amel, Anery".
 
tyflier said:
Well...since "albino" and "amel" are genetically the same thing, and since "hybino" is used to describe the combination of hypo and albino in almost every other species of snake being produced...why would it be "all of a sudden"? Better yet...why would it change to "hypoamel"? Just because it is called "amel" in cornsnakes and "albino" in every other species doesn't change the fact that an amel cornsnake is an albino...

It's also listed in the 2008 CMG--"Hybino-Genetic combination of amel & hypo".

Afterall...it is the combination of albino and hypo...:rolleyes::sidestep:
Click to expand...

Actually, I remember many, many years ago learning the term Amelanistic being used as opposed to Albino because Albino technically means "an animal or plant with a marked deficiency in pigmentation" per genetic definition. Which applies, as Susan mentioned, to more then just the Amel morph. So no, technically, Amel and Albino aren't the same thing.

Susan said:
And just an FYI, the CMG is not the bible of naming corn morphs. It's a wonderful guide and does list the names commonly used, but should not decide and dictate to the corn world what a morph SHOULD be called.
Click to expand...

:cheers:
 
The fun thing about definitions is that you can always look around until you find one with the wording that fits your argument. For example:

Albus from Latin meaning white.
Albinism occurs when one of several genetic defects makes the body unable to produce or distribute melanin.

That sounds alot like my understanding of amel.
 
I see, so your definition is better than mine. You must have got yours right out of the genetic book.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top