In reference to the 'C' Anerythristics...

[KJUN]

Maybe all gray rat snakes in the wild are Ultras.

Obviously, I have no intention of openning up another can of worms, but I am curious. I've already said my belief in this and other threads. I think the question of if ultra is a grey rat allele is almost academic, so the test crosses between grey rats and albino corns are pointless to some extent. They can show that ultras rats aren't hybrids, but I don't think the cross can prove that all of them are the results of man-made hybrids. Period.

However, I do respect your opinion. If multiple crosses if WILD-TYPE grey rats produce a simple recessive "ultra-like" allele in corns, how does this change your thoughts IF it changes your thoughts at all?

By the way, most people "testing" it seem to be using captive grey rats that are usually lighter than anything seen in the wild and may not be a true wild-type - or even a pure one - in and of itself.

But it is interesting to note that your gods must agree with your opinions in order to hold that status with you.

"Ray, when someone asks if you're a God, you say Yes!"
-Winston Zeddemore

 

[tyflier]

Has anyone ever documented the genetic code of a pure corn snake to use as a "base identifier" in determining the the purity of future captive bred lines?

I'm curious if there has ever been a scientific study to prove purity by genetic means rather than visual identifiers. It seems to me that at a minimum 99% of the arguments stem from visual identifiers, which are, by their very nature, always fallible. Has there ever been an infallible scientific documentation of the species to use as a baseline identifier? Or are people simply going by cenjecture and assumption?

What I mean is, forensically speaking, if I collect a mucous sample at a crime scene, it is considered unknown, until it is compared to baseline identifiers to determine what species of animal it came from. Does a baseline indentifier of the cornsake species even exist in a scientific setting?

If it doesn't, than every perrson to ever breed a cornsnake in captivity has made one giant assumption about it's species, and really...the whole argument is for nought.

Like Jeff said, if you can't tell the difference, what difference does it make?

 

[KJUN]

> Has anyone ever documented the genetic code of a pure corn snake to use as a "base identifier" in determining the the purity of future captive bred lines?

I think you misunderstand how those genetic tests work. There are too many problems with what you are proposing to go into in this thread. Heck, they couldn't erven get the human genome right for ONE person, and you are asking for the genome for a species - and alleles that are not in them but are in some undisclosed OTHER species? Sure, you could just build a database of a few alleles from pure corns and compare those to an unknown, but that wouldn't mean you got ALL of the ones in the species, that those alleles aren't present in other species, or that OTHER alleles you didn't test aren't foreign in a hybrid that is mostly composed of one parent species.

> Has there ever been an infallible scientific documentation of the species to use as a baseline identifier?

There has never been an infallible scientific study in any field....lol. Science doesn't claim to know the TRUTH (absolute truth in all caps!), which you would need to know to be infallible.

> What I mean is, forensically speaking, if I collect a mucous sample at a crime scene, it is considered unknown, until it is compared to baseline identifiers to determine what species of animal it came from.

Apples and oranges. The above scenario is VERY different from what you are asking for above. Too bad it isn't the same, huh? Hmmmmm, who would pay for the research to develop such a test, anyway?

> Like Jeff said, if you can't tell the difference, what difference does it make?

If the hospital sent you home with the wrong newborn baby, but it still looked sorta like you, what difference would it make?

KJ

 

[Menhir]

Sure! Being a student doesn't make anyone an expert nor perfect.

Sure, but it may be a hint for knowing the meaning of probabilities.

Being a student means you are still learning.

Have you stopped learning or why do you have to concentrate on that?

Would you mind telling us what these markers are that you are seeing?

I have no doubts about their look but about the source of the allele.

But it is interesting to note that your gods must agree with your opinions in order to hold that status with you.

Thats your conclusion and a very offensive one I think. I remember a time when RichZ was typing large textes about why he doesn't like to buy corns for the sake of having pure lines. Now I see your argumentation has changed - if one may call some points arguments.

So does that make a Butter Stripe corn a hybrid because it looks somewhat similar to a yellow rat snake? At some stages of development a black rat snake can look VERY similar to an Anerythristic corn. Does that make Anerythristics a hybrid based gene as well?

About 20 sentences earlier, you wanted to hear something about visible markers from me and now you are stating that markers are useless. Do you think consistency is important?

What exactly are these "vague hints and suspicions"?

I think they were already discussed widely on this board, don't you think?

But you can say that about EVERY corn on the planet. NO ONE can say with any absolute certainty that their animals do not have other species genetic influences in them.

You always come back to the argument of "NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE". Read my first post 2 pages before, I already said something about it and I still find that argument useless.
When no one knowed about what Contergan does to embryos, was it ok to use it? Sure. Can every medicine have bad influences? Sure. But at the time there were hints for something going one, it is not okay to say "NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE" anymore.
The example may be not the best one, I think a cruel one, but maybe it illustrates whats the case here. As soon as they are doubts, one has to deal with it and should not hide behind an uncertainty that is always there.

Greetings

 

[El Jefe]

If the hospital sent you home with the wrong newborn baby, but it still looked sorta like you, what difference would it make?

"Sorta like you" and "few to no markers" is quite different.

If my wife was to have a kid, I would go to a hospital that labels all of the babies with arm bands matching those of the mother and father and then places them in separate cribs. I would not go to a hospital that places all babies in a room without arm bracelets or any other markers and when the parents come they say, "You are white, here is a white kid."


Hmmmm.....ACR doesn't look that bad after all :sidestep:

 

[tyflier]

...There has never been an infallible scientific study in any field....lol. Science doesn't claim to know the TRUTH (absolute truth in all caps!), which you would need to know to be infallible...

Point taken .

...Apples and oranges. The above scenario is VERY different from what you are asking for above. Too bad it isn't the same, huh? Hmmmmm, who would pay for the research to develop such a test, anyway...

Not really. Species identifiers are basic genetic influences that are common to ALL members of a specific species. These genetics are the same in every human, every dog, every snake, every turtle...you get the idea. There are also genetic universalities that are common to every member of a specific subspecies...the same in every African-American, every black lab, every red ear slider, and every cornsnake. You don't need to identify and document every allele, just every universal allele to that subspecies, to create a baseline identifier. They are the common thread that makes each "being" specifically what it is. If it weren't possible to map it, we wouldn't have the variety of species identified that we have. Somewhere, somebody *should* have this documentation of what it is, exactly, that makes a pantherophis guttata a pantherophis guttata, and not some other subspecies of the pantherophis family. If that documentation doesn't[ exist, than, as I said, we are ALL guessing...

I don't claim to know a whole lot about the genetics involved in cornsnakes, and I certainly don't claim to be "scientific", in any way shape or form. But it would seem to me that inorder to be able to scientifically classify a snake as one species or subspecies rather than another, there NEEDS to be something more than "Well...it LOOKS like a cornsnake" to make this so. Otherwise, everything we know as it relates to species of ANY variety is simply a best guess based on appearance.

We know that there are baseline genetic differences between a lowland gorilla and a mountain gorilla, beyond appearance. Why don't we know the genetic differences between a gray rat snake and a corn snake beyond appearances?

I don't have the answers, and I don't know who does. It just seems to me that all of the bickering back and forth, based strictly on opinion and interpretation of visual appearances seems, at least to me, to pretty pointless, unless there is some conclusive evidence, somewhere, BEYOND appearances, that definitively shows one sake is subspecies (A), while another is subspecies (B), and the third is a combination of the two.

...If the hospital sent you home with the wrong newborn baby, but it still looked sorta like you, what difference would it make?...

I watched my daughter being born. I knew what she looked like within seconds of her of her first breath of air. HOWEVER, if there WERE a question as to her actually being mine, I could have a DNA test done to prove it.

But, just to humour you, if I sat in the waiting room, and things were done today like they were 40 or 50 years ago, and the hospital gave me the wrong child...and I never knew it...do you think I would love it any less? Do you think my "bonding" with the child would be any less impactive to our relationship? In other words, do you think adopted children are less loved by their parents than blood children? I don't. I think the act of bonding, and the feeling of love is based on your interaction with that child, not the blood flowing in their veins. I don't think genetics has anything to do with my ability to love my child and care for my child. It is based on my interaction with that child, and if I dedicate my life to a child, and never know that it isn't genetically mine, that love is not going to be any weaker because of it.

I say this because I have considered the possibility. To make a long story short, I struggled with your question for the better part of 2 years. And I absolutely decided that it didn't matter. My daughter is my daughter, and she always will be. DNA tests have proven it, but I made that decision LONG before the reults were in, as it were...

 

[KJUN]

Hmmmm.....ACR doesn't look that bad after all :sidestep:

....except that they require no proof that an animal is pure to be registered...and say they don't register hybrids other than with the guttata-complex animals BUT register Ultramels....lol.

 

[Rich Z]

Obviously, I have no intention of openning up another can of worms, but I am curious. I've already said my belief in this and other threads. I think the question of if ultra is a grey rat allele is almost academic, so the test crosses between grey rats and albino corns are pointless to some extent. They can show that ultras rats aren't hybrids, but I don't think the cross can prove that all of them are the results of man-made hybrids. Period.

However, I do respect your opinion. If multiple crosses if WILD-TYPE grey rats produce a simple recessive "ultra-like" allele in corns, how does this change your thoughts IF it changes your thoughts at all?

By the way, most people "testing" it seem to be using captive grey rats that are usually lighter than anything seen in the wild and may not be a true wild-type - or even a pure one - in and of itself.



"Ray, when someone asks if you're a God, you say Yes!"
-Winston Zeddemore

First off, before any substantial amount of evidence would be considered credible (at least by me), those gray rat snakes would have to come out of the wild. And probably from multiple non-contiguous locations. Anything coming from a captive hatched source would have to be suspect, just as the Ultras are suspect, as being potentially involved in hybridization. If someone were to be less than truthful about the corn snake stock, I doubt there is little reason to think this would not be the case in the gray rat snake stock as well.

Secondly, if the bulk of evidence indicated that in fact the greater majority (I think it would be a stretch to even think that ALL gray rats would be in this category) of gray rats are homozygous or at least carriers of this Ultra allele, then my response would be to simply accept the fact that I was lied to and go on with my life. I mean, we're not talking about multi-thousand dollar animals here, afterall. This would have little, if any impact on most people. The Ultras would be indicated (as well as anything related to them) as being from probably gray rat hybrid stock, and leave it at that. Take it or leave it. Would I destroy or otherwise attempt to weed out all stock here from that original UltraHypo blood line I got? Nope. I think at this point it would be senseless and fruitless (as well as foolish) to do so.

It wouldn't be the first time I was lied to and certainly not the last. I attempt to determine the truth as much as possible, but without carrying around a portable lie detector, you are pretty much at the mercy of what people will tell you. And with that in mind, even now, with someone coming up with positive proof, yes, even their credibility would have to be evaluated.

 

[Drizzt80]

ACR doesn't look that bad after all :sidestep:

I'm NOT knocking the ACR, BUT, the information IN the ACR is only as good as what human's list/enter there . . . :shrugs: Which I think is one the points underlying this debate whether it's Anery C, Ultra, or XYZ.

Carry on! It's been fun and informative following this so far! Really makes you think.
D80

 

[Rich Z]

Sure! Being a student doesn't make anyone an expert nor perfect.

Sure, but it may be a hint for knowing the meaning of probabilities.

Being a student means you are still learning.

Have you stopped learning or why do you have to concentrate on that?

Nope. I am learning all of the time. I guess I just have less enthusiasm for "teachers" for the kinds of things I am interested in learning about.

As for "concentrating" on this, if I recall, you are the one who brought it up, so I assumed it was an important point to you that needed to be addressed.

Would you mind telling us what these markers are that you are seeing?

I have no doubts about their look but about the source of the allele.

So you are saying you don't have any evidence to go on other than statements made by the "source"? And your entire conclusion is based on that "evidence"? Seems to me there are conflicting statements made, so what made you choose one statement(s) over the other(s)?

Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying here?

But it is interesting to note that your gods must agree with your opinions in order to hold that status with you.

Thats your conclusion and a very offensive one I think. I remember a time when RichZ was typing large textes about why he doesn't like to buy corns for the sake of having pure lines. Now I see your argumentation has changed - if one may call some points arguments.

Obviously your barb about "god" was intended to inflict offense to me. Sorry if that failed and the retort is offensive to you. Maybe it would be best to not be offensive yourself if you wish to not receive something offensive in return.

And nothing has changed about my obtaining new animals. Well not much, anyway. I have added "pathogens" to the list of why I don't buy animals from many people any longer. That is much more worrisome than a questionable genetic past, I think.

And see? There you go trying to be offensive again....

So does that make a Butter Stripe corn a hybrid because it looks somewhat similar to a yellow rat snake? At some stages of development a black rat snake can look VERY similar to an Anerythristic corn. Does that make Anerythristics a hybrid based gene as well?

About 20 sentences earlier, you wanted to hear something about visible markers from me and now you are stating that markers are useless. Do you think consistency is important?

I thought what is important is those "markers" you claim to be the vague hints and suggestions to make you believe one thing over another. I thought you might like to share with us exactly what those markers are for our own enlightenment. But earlier you stated there are none. You are basing your conclusions solely on statements made by the "source". Again, I apologize if I misunderstood what you were saying then.

What exactly are these "vague hints and suspicions"?

I think they were already discussed widely on this board, don't you think?

Apparently not. There appear to be several people unclear about these markers you refer to. I happen to be one of them. Perhaps not everyone read those earlier words you posted..... So please, I know it is an inconvenience, but I would really like to know....

But you can say that about EVERY corn on the planet. NO ONE can say with any absolute certainty that their animals do not have other species genetic influences in them.

You always come back to the argument of "NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE". Read my first post 2 pages before, I already said something about it and I still find that argument useless.
When no one knowed about what Contergan does to embryos, was it ok to use it? Sure. Can every medicine have bad influences? Sure. But at the time there were hints for something going one, it is not okay to say "NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE" anymore.
The example may be not the best one, I think a cruel one, but maybe it illustrates whats the case here. As soon as they are doubts, one has to deal with it and should not hide behind an uncertainty that is always there.

Apples and oranges, I think. What "bad influences" do you predict from this hybrid influence, if it exists?

And what can you do if the uncertainty can NEVER be removed? I do think you need to resolve this problem in your own mind, because it is most likely the final result of all this. NO ONE is really going to know for certain.

Certainly I would greatly prefer that my corns are "pure", and as best I have been able, I have tried to do so. But there comes a point where nearly everything hinges upon what someone else tells you. Certainly I have gotten animals that I later felt were not pure corns, and did discard them to someone who wanted them. And if I had gotten the same "feeling" about the Ultras, I would have done the same. I had no real reason to keep them otherwise, as up until rather recently, I thought they were just another Hypo corn. Yes, early on, I did have my doubts and accordingly I controlled what was bred together concerning anything for future breeding stock. When I sold some of them, I believe I did mention to the buyers that there was a slim possibility that they may be a hybrid. I believe part of this was from Mike Falcon's telling me of his suspicion about that original wild caught animal.

But the longer I worked with them, the less likely I felt that there was any evidence at all that would sway me to believe they were actually the results of hybridization. With having worked with them for over 10 years, that remains my opinion. Can I be wrong? Hell yes! And I hope that doesn't surprise anyone.

So anyway, I guess everyone can argue this until they are blue in the face, if they wish. Everyone will have their own opinions, but based on the scanty "facts" now available, everyone's opinion basically has the same weight of everyone else's. I seriously doubt there will ever be any real revelation about this that will settle everyone's minds one way or the other. So I do hope a lot of people aren't holding their breath waiting for this to take place.

Sorry about the way I had to do this. The copied quotes were getting messy.... :crazy02:

 

[toyah]

This is only really partially on the topic, but the albino locus in most animals is really shakey, and remutations and reversions happen on a (genetically) regular basis. I would be really surprised if amel had only mutated once, and I would be just as surprised if ultra had only mutated once.

 

[El Jefe]

....except that they require no proof that an animal is pure to be registered...and say they don't register hybrids other than with the guttata-complex animals BUT register Ultramels....lol.

I agree that proof is not need so hybrids can be registered as pure. However, a picture is also required so that will eliminate many of the hybrids being registered as pure...but some will be put in..it is not infallable. I don't follow the second part of your quote regarding ultramels. All hybrids can be registered as well as the parents used to create the hybrids. Whether ultramels are hybrids does not really matter in the ACR as either way they could be registered and once you have that family tree you will see a lot more connections.

Taken from the ACR website:
Q- Can any snake species be registered? Can I register my emoryi or milksnake or gopher snake?A- Only if it is part of the cornsnake gene pool. Please note that emoryi, intermontana, meahllmorum, rosacea, kisatchie are all allowed as these are often classified as subspecies, but other rat snakes and colubrids are not. If your non-corn is hybridized with corn you can register it. If your non-corn is the parent of a corn hybrid you can register it. For example, if your California kingsnake is the parent of a king X corn cross, then that California kingsnake can be registered.

I'm NOT knocking the ACR, BUT, the information IN the ACR is only as good as what human's list/enter there

Glad this was brought up. It is very true that the ACR is only as good as the beginning data. No argument there. However, the big difference between snake from person X and person Y using the ACR is that person Y's animals will have a family tree that cannot be changed. Once the data is there it is there. All edits are online as long as the ACR is online. So...if offspring down the road look funny or act funny are just don't appear 'right' then one can trace the bloodline back to something on the ACR. With the other method that has been used for years...well.....that brings us to our current debate on ultramels.

 

[Drizzt80]

No argument there. However, the big difference between snake from person X and person Y using the ACR is that person Y's animals will have a family tree that cannot be changed. Once the data is there it is there. All edits are online as long as the ACR is online.

But that's my point . . . Person Y who uses the ACR may be a liar and person X that chooses not to use the ACR could be the single most honest person on the planet . . . :shrugs: . . . or vice versa! All person Y has to do is indicate that the first animal in the lineage is pure corn . . . whether it is or isn't. Just because it's in the database makes it correct information?

D80

 

[tricksterpup]

I just want to say wow on this thread. I wish I could give everyone points here.
As some people here know, I am not a huge fan of the Anery C aka Z morph but I do enjoy this topic and the discussions going on here. I have tons of questions on this morph and I am sure once I fully read this thread I will have a better understanding on the Genetics at play here.

I did a have a comment that Rich asked and I am not sure if this is a correct answer. But it was the difference between a corn and rat and how can you tell? I know that many kings are differentiated by scale count on the head. Is this the same with Rats? I am personally not sure but If I look tonight I can get the answer.

 

[tyflier]

I just want to say wow on this thread. I wish I could give everyone points here.
As some people here know, I am not a huge fan of the Anery C aka Z morph but I do enjoy this topic and the discussions going on here. I have tons of questions on this morph and I am sure once I fully read this thread I will have a better understanding on the Genetics at play here.

I did a have a comment that Rich asked and I am not sure if this is a correct answer. But it was the difference between a corn and rat and how can you tell? I know that many kings are differentiated by scale count on the head. Is this the same with Rats? I am personally not sure but If I look tonight I can get the answer.

Checkout the "Hybrid Markers List" thread. I believe you will find your answer there, as regards scale and belly scutes counts...

 

[Roy Munson]

As some people here know, I am not a huge fan of the Anery C aka Z morph...

Really? I'm thinking of stickying this in the morph/cultivar section so you won't have to mention it every time these snakes are brought up. Or better yet, you could save me some work and just put it in your sig line... :grin01:

 

[El Jefe]

But that's my point . . . Person Y who uses the ACR may be a liar and person X that chooses not to use the ACR could be the single most honest person on the planet . . . :shrugs . . . or vice versa! All person Y has to do is indicate that the first animal in the lineage is pure corn . . . whether it is or isn't. Just because it's in the database makes it correct information?

D80

No doubt. Person Y could be a liar and person X could be a saint.

My point is when it is 2012 and people are scratching their head how a 'new' something came about it'll be a discussion like this involving animals from person X and as we can see there are many different opinions and no concrete paperwork trail. With person Y's animals, even if they lied in the beginning, one will be able to print out the family tree from person Y and have more of an idea where the 'new' thing came from. If multiple people have it and they all trace back to great, great grandfather then it will probably show that the great, great grandfather was the culprit...whether registered true or not. You can only hide the real facts so much....can't make an amel be anery or a blood really be a lavender.

The touchy things will be pure versus hybrid and many times a picture will fix that...not all the time granted...but many times. Yes the ACR is not full proof and I think hybrids are one of those things that the ACR will not prevent and cannot govern. That being said, the ACR will help at least keep hets straight. It will be harder to lie about your offspring if the registered parents don't have the genes you claim them to be. Sure, any person can come in and lie a few rounds but breeding will soon show those errors. Whether registered with the ACR or not, this can happen and neither method will prevent that.

 

[tricksterpup]

Really? I'm thinking of stickying this in the morph/cultivar section so you won't have to mention it every time these snakes are brought up. Or better yet, you could save me some work and just put it in your sig line... :grin01:

Done!!!!!!

 

[tyflier]

No doubt. Person Y could be a liar and person X could be a saint.

My point is when it is 2012 and people are scratching their head how a 'new' something came about it'll be a discussion like this involving animals from person X and as we can see there are many different opinions and no concrete paperwork trail. With person Y's animals, even if they lied in the beginning, one will be able to print out the family tree from person Y and have more of an idea where the 'new' thing came from. If multiple people have it and they all trace back to great, great grandfather then it will probably show that the great, great grandfather was the culprit...whether registered true or not. You can only hide the real facts so much....can't make an amel be anery or a blood really be a lavender.

The touchy things will be pure versus hybrid and many times a picture will fix that...not all the time granted...but many times. Yes the ACR is not full proof and I think hybrids are one of those things that the ACR will not prevent and cannot govern. That being said, the ACR will help at least keep hets straight. It will be harder to lie about your offspring if the registered parents don't have the genes you claim them to be. Sure, any person can come in and lie a few rounds but breeding will soon show those errors. Whether registered with the ACR or not, this can happen and neither method will prevent that.

Jeff--

If a breeder lies about their initial stock which is registered with the ACR, than future debates about lineage will go to the same place as this...nowhere...and just as quickly.

The "paper trail" left by the ACR will do nothing as far as "solving" the equation. It will only point the finger...which in turn will only lead to more questions. Likewise, those questions will not be answered, they will only lead to a "black smudge" on the culture as a whole, due to the apparrent lack of integrity presented by the problem.

Don't get me wrong...I think the ACR will go a long way towards helping to maintain the integrity of breeders. But if gartbage is put in, garbage comes out. A person with no integrity as regards their breeding and selling practices is not going to hesitate to lie in order to register their snakes, whether those lies are on paper or a hard drive somewhere. Do not underestimate the greed of some people. The ACR relies heavily on people being honest in their data. Obviously, we can't rely on this.

Whichever method folks choose as a means of tracking their breeding data, a liar is a liar...

 

[Roy Munson]

Done!!!!!!

:roflmao: You're too much! I'm going to crack up every time I see a post from you.