Since the thread I posted this in has been closed, I wanted to continue this conversation if any one else is so inclined....
At least in reference to the 'C' Anerythristics.
This genetic line came from a single animal that I got from a guy and his son who were at the ONLY Birmingham show we have ever attended. This was 1996, I believe. He said he lived in the keys and was visiting the area, had a gravid female corn he said came from the keys and wanted to trade me one of our leopard geckos for it. It was an interesting looking enough corn snake that I accepted the trade.
That animal was gravid and laid a clutch of eggs that season, but I do not think I kept any of them. I had wanted to breed hypomelanism into the Keys line, so the next season, I bred her with one of my hypos. And, of course, kept some of the babies back from that project.
Of course, I didn't breed one of those sons back to her for a few years as they grew and matured, but I don't recall what I bred her with in the interim. So figuring it was probably two or three years later before breeding back one of her sons to her. The hypos that came from breeding the het hypos together were nothing special, so I was about ready to call that project a complete bust. Just happened to have a couple of her sons around, and didn't have anything else special that I wanted to breed the original female with. So what the heck, I bred one of her son's back to her. That's when those first "anerythristic" looking animals appeared. Serendipity at work, yet again. And of course, I had already sold off most of those het hypos (likely carrying this new gene as well) along the line....
At the time, they looked more like Charcoals than anything else, but there was a slight difference to them that became more pronounced with age. And as it turned out, subsequent test breedings proved them to NOT be Charcoal nor 'A' Anerythrism at all. Well that's just ducky! Just what we need, another anerythristic looking gene........
So how "some" can come to the conclusion that the 'C' Anerythristics are a hybrid totally escapes me. Has a new law of nature been created that dictates that new genes can ONLY come from hybrids now? And a corollary of this new law is that creating hybrids naturally creates new genes? Well if that is so, how come we haven't seen that happening in PURPOSELY created hybrids then? There are certainly a number of them around, so please point out those new genes I have somehow become ignorant of over the last several years. What new gene was created by breeding California King to Corn Snake? Or from Bull Snakes x Corn Snake? And certainly Sinaloan Milks x Corn Snakes SHOULD have produced at least one new gene, I would think?
So where are they? Really, I am curious to see this flood of new genes in the corn snake created from this new law of nature that have somehow escaped my notice. Seriously, if that is all it takes to create new genes these days, then maybe I need to take a harder look at this hybridization thing. See what I am missing, eh?
And while you are at it, please tell me when exactly it was that this new law of nature went into effect. I want to know when it was that new genes in the corn snake were readily acceptable as being new genes and then when this law went into effect that changed the rules whereby new genes HAVE to be caused from hybridization. Really, I'm curious to know..........
BTW, I do not believe Susan is of the opinion stated in her quote. But for anyone else who is, well bring on your evidence......
Susan said:The dark side is very powerful and difficult to resist.
And if you listen to some, ultras and anery Cs are hybrids!
At least in reference to the 'C' Anerythristics.
This genetic line came from a single animal that I got from a guy and his son who were at the ONLY Birmingham show we have ever attended. This was 1996, I believe. He said he lived in the keys and was visiting the area, had a gravid female corn he said came from the keys and wanted to trade me one of our leopard geckos for it. It was an interesting looking enough corn snake that I accepted the trade.
That animal was gravid and laid a clutch of eggs that season, but I do not think I kept any of them. I had wanted to breed hypomelanism into the Keys line, so the next season, I bred her with one of my hypos. And, of course, kept some of the babies back from that project.
Of course, I didn't breed one of those sons back to her for a few years as they grew and matured, but I don't recall what I bred her with in the interim. So figuring it was probably two or three years later before breeding back one of her sons to her. The hypos that came from breeding the het hypos together were nothing special, so I was about ready to call that project a complete bust. Just happened to have a couple of her sons around, and didn't have anything else special that I wanted to breed the original female with. So what the heck, I bred one of her son's back to her. That's when those first "anerythristic" looking animals appeared. Serendipity at work, yet again. And of course, I had already sold off most of those het hypos (likely carrying this new gene as well) along the line....
At the time, they looked more like Charcoals than anything else, but there was a slight difference to them that became more pronounced with age. And as it turned out, subsequent test breedings proved them to NOT be Charcoal nor 'A' Anerythrism at all. Well that's just ducky! Just what we need, another anerythristic looking gene........
So how "some" can come to the conclusion that the 'C' Anerythristics are a hybrid totally escapes me. Has a new law of nature been created that dictates that new genes can ONLY come from hybrids now? And a corollary of this new law is that creating hybrids naturally creates new genes? Well if that is so, how come we haven't seen that happening in PURPOSELY created hybrids then? There are certainly a number of them around, so please point out those new genes I have somehow become ignorant of over the last several years. What new gene was created by breeding California King to Corn Snake? Or from Bull Snakes x Corn Snake? And certainly Sinaloan Milks x Corn Snakes SHOULD have produced at least one new gene, I would think?
So where are they? Really, I am curious to see this flood of new genes in the corn snake created from this new law of nature that have somehow escaped my notice. Seriously, if that is all it takes to create new genes these days, then maybe I need to take a harder look at this hybridization thing. See what I am missing, eh?
And while you are at it, please tell me when exactly it was that this new law of nature went into effect. I want to know when it was that new genes in the corn snake were readily acceptable as being new genes and then when this law went into effect that changed the rules whereby new genes HAVE to be caused from hybridization. Really, I'm curious to know..........
BTW, I do not believe Susan is of the opinion stated in her quote. But for anyone else who is, well bring on your evidence......