• 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.

Confused by Ultra/Ultramel

notserp

notserp

New member
I'm having a hard time understanding how these genes work. I read they are co dominant with Amel which together I'm assuming is Ultramel. I also read that an Ultra Caramel is the same as Ultramel Caramel = both Gold Dusts. This confuses me when it comes to breeding with the genes. Even if these two combos were both Gold Dusts breeding them seems like it would be different. Wouldn't the Ultamel ones bring amel into the mix to create het Amels and Amels depending on what they were bred to. This probably makes no sense I'm trying to learn. So can a Gold Dust be het ultra? If what I think I read means anything Ultra or Ultramel combined with the same gene = the same looking snake. So if you have a snake that looks like one of these combos, like a Gold Dust, is it up in the air as to whether it carries Ulrta or Ultamel and what different morphs you can get depending on which one it is?
 
An Ultra Caramel is homozygous Ultra Homozygous Caramel. An Ultramel Caramel is het amel het ultra homozygous Caramel. Being het for both amel and ultra results in a snake visibly different than a normal, called an Ultramel. So a Goldust is technically het ultra, but it is also het amel, which results in the visual "ultramel". It is also homozygous Caramel, and adding the two together gives you a Goldust.

Now, wrap your head around the fact that Ultramel (het ultra and amel) X Ultramel (het ultra het amel) will never give you "normals" that look...normal. The only "normals" you get are het ultra het amels...Ultramels...fun stuff :)
 
It can be extremely tricky to tell visually which is Ultra and which is Ultramel. I added a big Ultra/Ultramel Charcoal boy to by breeding collection before breeding time this season it was only through breeding him to a Blizzard that he proved to be Ultra Charcoal. If he was Ultramel Charcoal the resulting offspring would have been a mix of Blizzards and Ultramel Charcoals but instead the entire clutch was Ultramel Charcoals therefore proving out that he is homozygous Ultra.

It can definitely be a confusing set of genes, I don't think anyone will really argue that.
 
The reason why ultra caramels and ultramel caramels carry the same morph name is because they are almost impossible to tell apart. It would take breeding trials to see if the snake is homozygous ultra or is an ultramel. The only way to know for sure is if the offspring was from an ultra or ultramel that was bred to a homozygous amel. Then your only baby options are ultramels or amels, but no ultras. It's when you breed ultramel to ultramel that the 'fun' happens and you have no idea which are which.
 
A good friend of mine bred for two years now a pair of Goldust Motleys.
The non butter offspring really were divided at a 50/50 rate to brighter and darker offspring... in a rather consistent manner.

It is currently our belief that the darker goldusts are in fact, Ultra Caramels.

It might be clearer due to the presence of the Motley gene.
 
Thanks for all the help I do have a better understanding of it now. So if an animal is het Amel and het Ultra it can effect the appearance of the animal even tho they are hets because they are co dominant to eachother and form Ultramel? A breeder I know has some Gold Dusts listed as Gold Dusts het Ultra het Caramel. The Caramel made no sense to me because it was already in the homozygous form and now it doesn't make sense that it could be het Ultra either. Is this right?
 
notserp said:
A breeder I know has some Gold Dusts listed as Gold Dusts het Ultra het Caramel. The Caramel made no sense to me because it was already in the homozygous form and now it doesn't make sense that it could be het Ultra either. Is this right?
Click to expand...

Yes I can see where listing animals in such a manner is very confusing and it doesn't make sense that they are listing a visual gold dust as being het Caramel :awcrap::confused:
 
They aren't in Homozygous form... the Ultra and Amel gene occupy the same "spot" on the two opposite genum strands(AKA Locus/Loci) and react to each other differently than any of those genes would react alone in an homozygous form.
So, an Ultramel is het for both Amel and Ultra, but since they are on the same locus, the snake cannot be homozygous to one of these genes and not the other- the other gene takes the opposite spot and an ultramel "look" occurs.
 
Kokopelli said:
They aren't in Homozygous form... the Ultra and Amel gene occupy the same "spot" on the two opposite genum strands(AKA Locus/Loci) and react to each other differently than any of those genes would react alone in an homozygous form.
So, an Ultramel is het for both Amel and Ultra, but since they are on the same locus, the snake cannot be homozygous to one of these genes and not the other- the other gene takes the opposite spot and an ultramel "look" occurs.
Click to expand...

sorry my wording and genetic understanding is still at a low level but my thought is if a snake is het Amel and het Ultra forming Ultramel and is part of the visual of the snake such as a Gold Dust, does it make sense to list it as a Glod Dust het Ultra? I could be way off, it just seems like the same gene is being listed twice for the same snake.
 
notserp said:
sorry my wording and genetic understanding is still at a low level but my thought is if a snake is het Amel and het Ultra forming Ultramel and is part of the visual of the snake such as a Gold Dust, does it make sense to list it as a Glod Dust het Ultra? I could be way off, it just seems like the same gene is being listed twice for the same snake.
Click to expand...

That's correct, being a Goldust constitutes the presence of that gene already so it's redundant to list it again...
But some people's understanding is less than perfect... it's always a good idea to ask for a picture.
 
Kokopelli said:
That's correct, being a Goldust constitutes the presence of that gene already so it's redundant to list it again...
But some people's understanding is less than perfect... it's always a good idea to ask for a picture.
Click to expand...

thanks for the help
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top