• 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.

In reference to the 'C' Anerythristics...

divapixie said:
I have to wonder this... what does all this mean to you each as individuals? Because the way some of you carry on about these genetic issues the more I wonder about other things...
Click to expand...
Some of the participants in this discussion make their living from breeding and selling snakes. Others are passionate hobbyist-breeders who supplement their incomes via their hobby, or at least try to. "Hybrid" is a dirty word to many snake enthusiasts, so unfounded suspicions concerning hybrid genes in "pure" lines can damage reputations and marketability. And to others, the genetic discussions are extremely interesting, even if they have no financial or reputational impact.
 
OK... that makes more sense... I just always wonder what these things mean to people... it is apparent that it is a BIG deal to some and not so much to others and the clarification of why is helpful. Thank you.
 
KJUN, my bad, I looked on the peterson field guide you are right I thought that the S.E conor of La, was gray rat but I was wrong, sorry you are right it is Lindheimerii.
 
No biggie. I "cheated" since I've herped that area....lol. I grey up in south Louisiana.

KJ
 
Rich Z said:
As for the 'C' Anery, I was surprised as well when it proved to not be type 'A' nor Charcoal. I don't recall if I have bred this line to Caramel or Lavender, so that still remains a remote possibility at this point, that this could be a derivative of one of those existing genes. One which I doubt, but it does deserve mentioning here. The reason I haven't done so is because I feel I have already opened up a pandora's box by breeding these guys to 'A' anerys and Charcoals. I'm reluctant to make things even worse. Plus I just don't think Caramel/'C' anerys and Lavender/'C' anerys will be anything much to look at.... :puke01: :)
Click to expand...
Actually, seeing how amel and anery C (aka "Morph Z" and "cinder" - Vinny asked if any other names have been used) combine (that guy still give me goose-bumps Carol!), I think there may be some very interesting looks to many of these combinations. I am also curious about the large variation in the coloration of the C's in general. I personally like the maroon coloration mixed with the silver, more like the first one Rich posted, but with a touch more maroon. The second one just seems to have too much saddle color (did I actually say that?)...but then, the hypo anery C's with that individual in the lineage might be terrific. And if the colors mix just right, a lavender anery C or a hypo lavender anery C might be quite spectacular. The possibilities resulting from just combining anery C with the more common genes are exciting! And then you add some of the not-so-common ones, like a lava anery C or a dilute anery C...
 
I've got eggs cooking that are C X Hypo Lavender Motley so we will know soon enough. I've also put the amel C in with a butter but I haven't witnessed anything yet. Maybe tonight's a good night to try again. :shrugs:
 
Roy Munson said:
Some of the participants in this discussion make their living from breeding and selling snakes. Others are passionate hobbyist-breeders who supplement their incomes via their hobby, or at least try to. "Hybrid" is a dirty word to many snake enthusiasts, so unfounded suspicions concerning hybrid genes in "pure" lines can damage reputations and marketability. And to others, the genetic discussions are extremely interesting, even if they have no financial or reputational impact.
Click to expand...

I think in a nutshell, what it boils down to is this: Hybridization is the easy way of trying to make something new. Having the good fortune to have a new gene pop up in your colony is DAMNED rare and nothing at all that you have any control over.

Perhaps that is why some people try to downplay the event.... :shrugs: Actually I wouldn't mind it at all if simply hybridizing corn snakes forced a new mutation to result. Sure would make things easier.... But alas...... :rolleyes:
 
carol said:
I don't believe traits spontaneously appear when you make hybrids.
Click to expand...
Is it possible that genes that don't appear in the phenotype of the original species do have an effect on corn snakes, and that only when breeding the hybrids are we made aware of them?
 
This is a topic I cant really contribute greatly to as I own neither morph and probably never will.
However from what ive heard, over here in the UK, some breeders are thinking that Ultras and Ultramels are hybrids. Im not 100% sure how a UK breeder can comment on that when the ultramel gene has not been bred to any great extent over here, if at all, but it does make it quite interesting.
For example: I was very keen on buying a ultramel anery in a shop near me, its the real deal, imported from the states, then I heard about the rat snake theory and I stopped to think did I want rat snake genes in my collection and lines?
Now I hope I now get bitten in the rear and ultramels are proven not to be hybrids because it would be a great shame if they were
 
None of the evidence I have seen is convincing either way. And one thing you need to bear in mind, that there may be ulterior motives involved in the people telling you they are a hybrid. It sure would give them a leg up on the competition if they scared away people for a few years while they initiated all their own projects. Then when they are ready, then push hard claiming that it is NOT a hybrid.

Yeah, I know, I'm pretty jaded about my outlook on how some people do their business aspects. Comes with the turf and experience running the BOI over on FaunaClassifieds, I guess.

Personally, I just don't know for certain either way. There are some cultivars out there that people swear up and down are "pure" and they look odd enough to me to bring questions to my mind. And others that people say are "hybrids" with no more information about them than the couple of pics they may have seen on the web.

So take it all with a couple grains of salt. Too many people claiming to be experts about stuff that they clearly can not be.
 
Rich Z said:
None of the evidence I have seen is convincing either way.
Click to expand...

I'm still of the opinion that some lines of the ultramels are DEFINITELY grey rat hybrids. No doubt about it. I am NOT convinced, though, that ALL lines are hybrids. Heck, even if it turns out that a oak phase grey rat produces ultramales in the first generation, I won't be convinced that the mutation didn't pop up in corns on its own - or at least enter the captive population from a wild corn that had a little grey rat in it naturally from generations back. We've already shown that allelic mutations can pop up in very unrelated species by coincidence only. Until the actual allele is typed and and it turns out to be the exact same base mutation, I think calling all ultramels hybrids to be nothing more than a hypothesis based on weak evidence. My conclusion is ALSO based on weak evidence. The problem is a lack of STRONG evidence.

Too many things punch holes in the "all ultramels are hybrids" - including the lack of much evidence except the word of a known liar and the fact that some are definitely hybrids - for it to be a known factor. Besides, let's assume they are hybrids. All of them. Just pretend we know this to be truth. Now, almost all of the amels produced by an ultramel are hybrids, look pure, and are sold as a cornsnake without mentioning it has ultramel blood in it. Amels are crossed to everything. There is a chance we all have genes in our colonies from those snakes even if we don't have any phenotypic ultramels in our colonies - even if we don't have any amels!

What does that mean? If you think ultramels are hybrids, and you don't want hybrids, you pretty much won't be able to buy a cornsnake in the future without running the risk of it having hybrid blood in it. I gave up. :(
 
Back then I purchased the "Ultrahypos" from Mike Falcon and the GoldDusts from Mike Shiver (which he was just calling Ambers at the time), both swore up and down that they were from pure corn snake stock. And I made a point of querying them MANY times about it. Those are words I heard from them directly. There have been statements posted later saying that one or both of them have recanted this position, but since this is just hearsay at this point, I cannot comment on any of the actual details of those discussions. I have to either believe or not, those statements made to me personally. The same as if either or both of those guys now told me the opposite, I could either believe it or not. Certainly there is a valid argument that I could have been lied to in order to make a sale. While possible, seems somewhat weak as the sales of those animals didn't seem to be lacking any. But on the other hand, an argument could also be made that the later alleged statements could be untruthful as well. Prices on those animals pretty much skyrocketed when it became known what we were really dealing with. Certainly a case of "sour grapes" could be forwarded about one or both in respect to losing a cornered market of that gene pool. How better to try to torpedo the enthusiasm for this new genetic toy than by claiming now that they are hybrids? If someone tells two completely opposite stories, it is obvious that one has to be a lie. It is just as obvious that a person claiming that one is the truth over the other has no real credibility anyway, so the choice of which one may be the truth is really up to you. You really can't put any weight to their statements any longer.

So all we can do is make our own observations, and best guesses based on those observations. As to that being a better method than trying to wrest the truth out of those people who may really know, I guess it's a toss up as to which will be the better method to employ. One of the most useless questions in the English language is "Are you lying to me?" So why bother asking?
 
...One of the most useless questions in the English language is "Are you lying to me?" So why bother asking?
Click to expand...

Very true, very true.

In this business, one has only one's reputation and word. It sounds to me like the originators lost both credibility and reliability. There truly is no way to find out "the truth" at this point, because you cannot weigh either statement from the same person any more than the other.

Is it possible the originator lied to Rich to make a sale? Sure is possible. Is it possible they lied about the genetic properties after-the-fact over "sour grapes" as Rich put it? Very possible.

The bottom line is that some people will do ANYTHING to make a buck, and anyone willing to lie to make a quick dollar is certainly capable of lying for a myraid of other reasons.

So which "lie" do you believe?

I will state that I find it hard to believe that it is THAT easy to "fool" someone with such an incredible amount of experience in both captive bred and w/c corns, and their field identification.

Which leads me to this question...

Rich, when you originally purchased the animals in question, what was your reason for questioning the purity of the blood lines? Did they look "off"? Did they LOOK pure? Was it merely idle curiosity that made you question the purity of their bloodlines, or was there something about them that caused you to ask? I think answers to these questions will shed some light. While we may not be able to believe the word of known liars, we can certainly appreciate your visual perspective on the animals, and through this, perhaps, we can come closer to deciphering which statements were the truth...
 
tyflier said:
Which leads me to this question...

Rich, when you originally purchased the animals in question, what was your reason for questioning the purity of the blood lines? Did they look "off"? Did they LOOK pure? Was it merely idle curiosity that made you question the purity of their bloodlines, or was there something about them that caused you to ask? I think answers to these questions will shed some light. While we may not be able to believe the word of known liars, we can certainly appreciate your visual perspective on the animals, and through this, perhaps, we can come closer to deciphering which statements were the truth...
Click to expand...

Even back then in the mid to late '90s, I rarely bought animals from anyone. Main reasons are that there were (and are) too many people dumping unhealthy animals on the public, and I am have become more distrustful of people in general about they relationship with the truth. But when I did, I always asked about the ancestry in relation to "purity". And yes, there were some occasions where I asked, and having doubts about the answer, checked with other people. Sometimes I just walked away from the offering Sometimes I bought animals and was obviously lied to by the seller, as after some time working with them, became convinced they were not what they were sold as, and got rid of them.

It only stands to reason that a different looking cornsnake that would catch my eye, would be "different" looking. So it is only prudent to ask what it is about that animal that makes it look that way. And it was not at all unusual for me to ask the same person the same question later on, to verify the information I thought I was told previously.

So as far as the Ultras are concerned, there is nothing I have seen in them in the years I have been working with them where I can conclude they must be hybrids. They are no different looking nor acting from what you would consider as mainstream corn snakes as are say Miami Phase from Okeetees, or Blizzards, Ambers, Upper Keys, Sunkisseds, etc., from any other group of cornsnakes.
 
Rich Z said:
Even back then in the mid to late '90s, I rarely bought animals from anyone. Main reasons are that there were (and are) too many people dumping unhealthy animals on the public, and I am have become more distrustful of people in general about they relationship with the truth. But when I did, I always asked about the ancestry in relation to "purity". And yes, there were some occasions where I asked, and having doubts about the answer, checked with other people. Sometimes I just walked away from the offering Sometimes I bought animals and was obviously lied to by the seller, as after some time working with them, became convinced they were not what they were sold as, and got rid of them.

It only stands to reason that a different looking cornsnake that would catch my eye, would be "different" looking. So it is only prudent to ask what it is about that animal that makes it look that way. And it was not at all unusual for me to ask the same person the same question later on, to verify the information I thought I was told previously.

So as far as the Ultras are concerned, there is nothing I have seen in them in the years I have been working with them where I can conclude they must be hybrids. They are no different looking nor acting from what you would consider as mainstream corn snakes as are say Miami Phase from Okeetees, or Blizzards, Ambers, Upper Keys, Sunkisseds, etc., from any other group of cornsnakes.
Click to expand...
Well, speaking PURELY for myself...That is good enough for me. With as much experience as you have in this business/art, I trust your conclusions. It's as if the snake itself had said it to me...:D.

Seriously, though...I can't talk, because I really don't know, hac\ving only been involved in corns for a short time. But If I'm gonna take someone's word for something, it might as well be someone that I know is well respected in the community, right?
 
Now, almost all of the amels produced by an ultramel are hybrids, look pure, and are sold as a cornsnake without mentioning it has ultramel blood in it. Amels are crossed to everything. There is a chance we all have genes in our colonies from those snakes even if we don't have any phenotypic ultramels in our colonies - even if we don't have any amels!
Click to expand...

That is something I have often thought about as this has become a bigger issue. If I breed a golddust motley to a butter motley, I'll get half and half. Now, the ultra gene is gone in the resulting butter motleys, but in good conscience, I wouldn't want to just sell them as butter motleys without letting people know that there was ultra in their lineage, now that it's an issue, right?. Is anyone out there doing that?
Like Kjun said, what about the 50% amels resulting from ultramel/amel crosses . I doubt very seriously that anyone up to this point has ever bothered identifying them as coming from ultra lineage. That's not even including the het ultra OR amels. It seems like with all the crossing going on there would be a ton of amel/something animals tagged with "from ultra lineage" but I just don't/haven't seen it.
I am wondering what different breeders take is on that. Personally, it doesn't bother me at all, as I'm in the "ultras are cornsnakes" club.
 
Well, bv, with the exponential difference in monetary value between an Ultramel Butter and a Butter, I highly doubt that anyone is selling ultra-heritage offspring WITHOUT identifying the heritage as such. It only increases the value of the snake, even it is in heterozygous form...

Have you seen the price difference between a Golddust and an Amber? I don't think it's an issue in that manner at this point...
 
Well, maybe I didn't word it right, but a golddust x butter would be half golddusts and half butters. I was referring to the butters themselves, and how they would be identified, and not the golddusts. I know they're pricey, as I have a few myself.
 
Any Butter Motleys coming from that breeding (golddust motley to a butter motley) would not be het for Ultra, so for all intents and purposes, they are merely "Butter Motleys".

You really can't have an "Ultramel Butter" when breeding GoldDust to Butter. You would either have Butters, or you would have GoldDusts. A GoldDust is REALLY a Caramel that is het for both Ultra and Amelanism.
 
Rich Z said:
Any Butter Motleys coming from that breeding (golddust motley to a butter motley) would not be het for Ultra, so for all intents and purposes, they are merely "Butter Motleys".
Click to expand...
I believe the author's point is that the Butter Motley offspring, while not inheriting the Ultra gene, may still have inherited other, unexpressed but present, non-corn snakes genes, assuming Ultra originated from a hybrid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top