In reference to the 'C' Anerythristics...

[tyflier]

Done!!!!!!

FIGHT!! :sidestep:

You guys are too funny... :twoguns: :crazy02: :wavey:

 

[El Jefe]

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.

I agree mostly...

I still think it would be nice to be able to point to the one snake or person that could be responsible. Right now with the ultra thing we have 3 main people who are involved...all with different stories and supposedly they've said different things to different people.

Hypothetically, if they all had registered their stock and everyone kept up with the animals registrations it would be easy to trace your ultra back to a pure or hybrid line if different lines existed from the beginning. But...as you've pointed out...if everyone lied about their stock in the beginning...we would be no where. But...if everyone told the truth in the beginning, those with registered stock could trace it back to the pure or hybrid animals...if hybrids did indeed exist. And just think how cool the records would be if they all had pictures going back that far. That in and of itself would shed a lot of light on this whole debate.

 

[tyflier]

I agree mostly...

I still think it would be nice to be able to point to the one snake or person that could be responsible. Right now with the ultra thing we have 3 main people who are involved...all with different stories and supposedly they've said different things to different people.

Hypothetically, if they all had registered their stock and everyone kept up with the animals registrations it would be easy to trace your ultra back to a pure or hybrid line if different lines existed from the beginning. But...as you've pointed out...if everyone lied about their stock in the beginning...we would be no where. But...if everyone told the truth in the beginning, those with registered stock could trace it back to the pure or hybrid animals...if hybrids did indeed exist. And just think how cool the records would be if they all had pictures going back that far. That in and of itself would shed a lot of light on this whole debate.

Yea...I see your point, and understand your intentions. And I agree with you.

The only problem I have with it is this: Once a person has lied to their customers about the origins of the snake they purchased, that person is HIGHLY unlikely to ever admit their lie. What is more likely to happen is that the liar would later claim that they "made an honest mistake" when registering their stock, and would most likely use "too many prjects at one time" as a validating excuse to cover their own @$$, should the situation arise.

What we are then left with is almost verbatim the situation we have now...the "original breeders" conflicting the evidence, themselves, and each other.

Maybe I'm just too darn jaded to be "only" 33...

 

[Drizzt80]

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.

True, and I agree with much the same points as Tyflier made. The ACR as a tool is great, but it wouldn't solve the problem there currently is with "proving" the ultra gene. It would still come down to needing to be able to trust the word of the people you are working with! Which I think is the true crux of the discussion (and information) . . .
1. Can the information concerning the origination of Ultra be trusted as true or false? Or are there more than one solution that is true?
2. Can the information concerning the origination of Anery C be trusted as true or false?

I'll admit that my initial reaction to Anery C was hybrid. I questioned the saddle count . . . that was one of the """hybrid markers""" spouted about creamsicles . . . and I had also never heard, or at least come across, specific information as to it's development. Honestly I didn't pay much attention to it as I didn't quite like the look or the 'hybrid-like' look it has. But between Carol and Rich Z. discussions in this thread and elsewhere, my opinion has changed due to trusting their word on the matter. As for ultras? pfffft, who knows!? (I'm still kinda ruminating over the fact that Anery C was never really publicly questioned . . . especially looking back at how Lava was 1st received . . . and now Ultra . . . and any Amel that looks like a creamsicle! :crazy02: )

D80

 

[El Jefe]

how Lava was 1st received . . .
D80

Tell me about it...

 

[Rich Z]

To bring this back on topic, would someone please explain to me that if the "marker" some people are using to determine that the 'C' Anerythristics are a hybrid is the high saddle count, then why is it that NONE of mine (even the hets from this stock) have an exceptionally high saddle count?

Just to refresh everyone's memory, here are some pics again:

And this is a photo of the original female who is carrying 'C' Anerythrism that started this line:

Here is a group shot of babies that came from this female after being bred with 'C' Anerythristic sons:

So just exactly what number of dorsal blotches is considered as being abnormally high?

In my opinion, I don't see anything indicating an abnormally high dorsal blotch count in any of these animals.

 

[LindsayMarie]

I want to thank everyone for there input in this thread as it is valuable information for us newer and possible future breeders. Anyways I had a question for either Rich or Carol (preferably both ) Is there a reason why the two lines of Anery C/Cinder/Z look so different? I know the original cinder or het Carol received was bred to a miami phase?, but can that make such a huge difference in all the cinders in Carols line? You have a very red saddled cinder (Rich), then you have a mostly grey (Carol)? Is it just major variation? I cant imagine what can be done to make beautiful combos with these beauties. I hope to someday! Please dont take this as an accusation or anything other then a question? Thats all it is. Thanks a bunch.

ps. Have you tried to breed each others original cinders to each other to make sure it is the same gene? Just curious if mutation happened along the way or something...lol I am no genetics wiz thats for sure. :shrugs: :crazy02:

 

[carol]

I can attribute the high saddle count some of mine have to the Hypo Miami I mixed into the line. As far as the difference in looks, you can see by looking at Rich's pics that he also has both looks, the one in the first pic is mostly grey with a little bit of base color and the one in the rest of the pics has dark saddles. I see both variations popping up here as well. It could be natural variation or it could be how the gene is reacting with another mutation, such as Hypo. I know it's too early for me to have put my finger on it but maybe Rich has some theorys. :shrugs:

 

[KJUN]

I can attribute the high saddle count some of mine have to the Hypo Miami I mixed into the line.

I still say that doesn't make much logical sense. Granted, there could be some synergistic effect between Type C and some other common allele (or even a new allele that causes high blotch counts itself) lurking around. Both cases are unlikely, but these mutations are unlikely in and of themselves, anyway....lol. Sooo, all of this is possible, and I can't offer anything meaningful on that point yet.

Just crossing your Type C line into a "miami" line can NOT result in blotch counts as high as those you photographed. Again, I'm not saying it makes them hybrids and I am sorry to be harping on this point, but you aren't the first person to outcross a miami corn - but you are the first to get babies with ~60 body blotches (if I remember my estimate correctly!) from the outcross. Heck, Miami's don't have nearly that high of a blotch count. :shrugs: ...or are you sdaying your hypo Miami has blotches that would put a bairdii to shame? If your hypo miami DOES have in the neighborhood of 60 body blotches, then that could be where it came from.......AND should open up interesting question. It wouldn't explain why the hets from the cross (that I think it was you posted had a low blotch count) or why you don't have some with body blotch counts in-between your highs and your lows....or do you?

BTW, I didn't see any like yours in the image list that Rich posted. Those wouldn't have put up a curiosity flag in my mind like the ones you posted did.

 

[Drizzt80]

Rich, going another route, and straying away from the blotch count and hybrid discussion, is the head speckling a similar trait in your Anery C and het Anery C snakes?!?! Looking at all the pics you just put up, there seems to be a fair amount of head/forehead(?) speckling going on which is quite interesting (similar to how there is unique head patterns found in sunkissed!).

D80

 

[ecreipeoj]

Personally, I believe Rich’s history of the Cinder gene (AKA Z Morph), is not disputable.

I believe Carols high saddle count is nothing more than the recovery of a certain phenotype, that is most likely caused by a recessive gene, or other strong genetic factors in the line. I do not believe that we have even came close to proving out many other pattern type genes, such as Sunglows. Sunglows lack of white, can easily be attributed to a genetic trait for the lack of borders for example. Carols high saddle count Cinders, did not come from Rich Z. The Cinder gene did, but the pattern trait came from a different line.

I do not see the difference between breedings between Corns X Emory, and Corns X Keys. They are both crosses between different subspecies. Aren’t these both INTERGRADES, and not Hybrids at all? A new paper has been written and places Keys with Corns, but this paper is not accepted by the academic community yet. Officially, they are still a separate subspecies of Corns.

Do you know what I heard the other day? T+ Albinos are the only pure form of Ultra? Isn’t that amazing, since the T+Albinos do not have a KN OWN history, but Ultras do. They are both alleles to Amel, but the T+ came many years after the Ultras were recovered in clutches. It is extremely obvious to me, that the T+ are a result of the Ultra gene floating as het, but due to their lack of history, some people are actually promoting them as the pure form of Ultramel, because as far as they know they are PURE. Isn’t it amazing how far some people with go with public relations, in an attempt to hold onto Corn Snake purity.

We have all talked about positive proof being needed to show that Ultras do in fact have Gray Rats in their background. I read a thread the other day that seemed to indicate that DNA testing can not possibly prove this out one way or another. Based upon what I read, DNA testing only reveals if the mother was pure Corn or a Gray Rat hybrid, not the father. DNA Testing of a Gray Rat X Corn would show that the offspring are pure Corn, and DNA testing of a Corn X Gray Rat hybrid, would show that the offspring have Gray Rat in them, that is if I understood the thread correctly. If this is the case, there will never be any PROOF positive, therefore; people can always and forever hide behind the statement of as far as I know they are pure, which is a totally meaningless statement. Lack of proof is no proof at all. The only proof that we have about the purity of Ultras is Falcons statement that the original Ultra carrier was bred, to both Corns and Gray Rats.

To this day, Falcon does not understand that Ultra is an allele to Amel, so he definitely could not really understand the results of his breedings in the beginning either. They named “Ultra” based upon the phenotype of Ultramel, not Ultra. If anything, Ultra is less of an extreme hypo than Hypo is. The Gray Rat which Barr used to make his Gray Rat X Corn Hybrids was a White Oak Gray Rat. Some people believe that the White Oak Phase, may be caused by a hypo gene, based upon their breedings. Myself and others, are testing White Oak X Amel to see if it is possible that the Ultra gene is also contained in wild White Oaks. All evidence in the history of the Ultra gene points to them having Gray Rat in their background. The only evidence that exist that there may be some Ultras that are pure Corn, is because AFTER Shivers stated that he has knowledge that his line of Goldust have Gray Rat in them, Falcon changed his story from Ultras being pure Corn to he bred them to Corns AND Gray Rats, and the original carrier appeared to be a Hybrid anyway. Also, keep in mind, that the original carrier was a female, so clutches were limited. My only conclusions from my test between Gray Rat X Corn, if I produced Ultramels, is that it is more likely that Barr actually created the first Ultramels, rather than Falcon.

As far as I know, Rich Z is the only one that is claiming that he bought pure Ultras from Falcon. This is the one area, that I have an extreme problem with. Rich Z Ultras are no more pure than mine are. Rich you still own these PURE Ultras, isn’t it time we saw photos of them? I know they are mean and won’t stand still, and your time is very precious, but isn’t it time to take the time and show us some photos of Pure Ultras, so we can see the difference between our Hybrid Ultras?

 

[KJUN]

I've hate to nitpick, but......lol......

Sunglows lack of white, can easily be attributed to a genetic trait for the lack of borders for example.

Not really. A trait (singluar) would mean you had ones with white borders or ones without....and you could havesnakes that were truly a heterozygous carrier for sunglow or reverse Okeetee. Not possible. The lack of whtte on a sunglow is due to non-Mendelian mode of inheritance. There must be a suite of traits interacting together to give us the wide arrange of phenotypes from reverse Okeetees to sunglow corns that we actually see.

The Cinder gene did, but the pattern trait came from a different line.

Maybe, but maybe not. Assume it is a simple recessive mutation that has no hybrid origin. It could have arisen spontaneously in the animal with the Type C aner allele that she got from Rich. She may have more data to show she gets the pattern from the Miami corn, but she hasn't presented that data (that I've seen) yet. If it is another case of non-Mendelian genetics (many genes working together to give a range of phenotypes), then I agree it sounds like it came from something other than the original carrier of the Type C aner allele.

I do not see the difference between breedings between Corns X Emory, and Corns X Keys. They are both crosses between different subspecies. Aren’t these both INTERGRADES, and not Hybrids at all? A new paper has been written and places Keys with Corns, but this paper is not accepted by the academic community yet. Officially, they are still a separate subspecies of Corns.

Got a citation that I must have missed? Man, key corns haven't been listed as a separate subspecies for decades. I haven't seen a scientific paper support the Key Corn subspecies for decades. Emoryi are pretty much considered a different species now. That split was proposed since the 70's, and I can only think of ONE majoe paper that had emoryi listed as separate SUBspecies (in 1996). They were only looking at Texas specimens, and had a small sample size of true E. guttata. That probably biased that result PLUS E. emoryi wasn't the target of the paper. Texas locality E. guttata were. You need to put the papers conclusions in perspective of the hypothesis being tested.

All of that doesn't matter. In tscience, "intergrade" refers to a NATURAL cross between two subspecies. Hobbyists try to use that term to describe a non-natural cross because they seem to think that "hybrid" might have a worse connotation. Intergrade is a VERY specific, exclusive, term. Hybrid isn't - it is a more inclusive term. Still, the definition of a term is pointless. E. emoryi are pretty well accepted as a separate species today. If E. slowinskii get bumped down to E. g. slowinskii, and the one from Calhoun county shows gene flow with E. emoryi, then E. emoryi MIGHT get reduced to E. g. emoryi again. Who knows? (Yes, some institutions still call all members of the E. guttata complex "E. guttata," but even those are going away. Heck, I've still seen watersnakes from the Us listed as Natrix....lol.)

Do you know what I heard the other day? T+ Albinos are the only pure form of Ultra? Isn’t that amazing, since the T+Albinos do not have a KN OWN history, but Ultras do. They are both alleles to Amel, but the T+ came many years after the Ultras were recovered in clutches.

I assume you mean allelic above, but is this in reference to the conversation we had a couple of weeks ago? If so, I'm sorry if I might have been a little confusing, but that isn't what I said. I said the T+ were some of the earliest Ultramels, and (to the best of my knowledge) MANY didn't look the least bit like hybrids. My point was that those would of had to be more grey rat in origin than today'sultramels, but they still didn't show it. I was bringing up question further evidence on why I believe it is at least possible that SOME ultramels are pure even though we know some are obvious hybrids. I was in no way making a statement - I was just listing evidence that does support another possible hypothesis. The hypothesis that "all are hybrids" doesn't seem to explain the above observation to me.

If this isn't in reference to our conversation, then I'm sorry for eseeming a little egocentric. I'm aware that the world doesn't revolve around me.

Based upon what I read, DNA testing only reveals if the mother was pure Corn or a Gray Rat hybrid, not the father.

That's only in reference to mitochondrial DNA. The mother, via the larger egg, is the only one that provides mDNA to an offspring. The nuclear DNA is 50% from each parent in a normal fertilized egg. When most people think of DNA, they mean nDNA and don't even realize that mDNA exists. mDNA is just easier to work with in the lab than nDNA.

Hope that clears the muddy water a little bit....
KJ

 

[Rich Z]

Joe, please show me where I claim the Ultras I have are pure. Let's not get foot loose and fancy free with the truth here, please. All my claims have echoed the claims I got from Mike Falcon in claiming that HE said they are pure. That was after MANY queries to him about the history of that line. However, I seldom take anyone at face value, so my claim is that after working with them for 10 years, I have NO evidence that shows them positively to be hybrids. Regardless of the accuracy of his claims. I have no evidence that makes me SUSPECT STRONGLY that they are hybrids, neither. Seems to me that some people are picking and choosing which statements they choose to believe from those people uttering conflicting and directly opposing stories. I am choosing, because of the conflict, to discount EVERYTHING they say and go with what I see in the animals themselves. That is the ONLY logical thing to do at this point, in my opinion.

So if you want ROCK SOLID proof, one way or the other, well good luck. Prove that any animal YOU have does not have hybridization somewhere in it's heritage.... You can't do it and you KNOW you can't.

As for photos of the original stock I got from Mike Falcon, I suppose I may have some photos around here somewhere, but finding them is rather low on my priority list. Regardless of what anyone else THINKS I should do with my "precious" time. Obviously this is much more important to you than it is to me.

Not that I think the photos will tell you anything anyway, as the general consensus is that people who claim they can tell a hybrid reliably from a photo are just blowing smoke. I know I can't do it, and I seriously doubt that YOU can either. Walk into a mall and look at all the differences in a single species called Homo sapiens and then try to tell me that morphological differences in any species of snake cannot be just as wild and varied. Anyone who has worked with a species for any length of time breeding them and producing babies and has not noticed this fact just is NOT paying attention to the evidence in front of their eyes.

As for that original stock, I only have the original female remaining here, she is OLD and looks like hell. She is blind in both eyes and looks like she is on the way out. All anyone would be able to determine from a photo of her would be the wonderment about why I haven't thrown her in the freezer already.

Personally, I really don't care either way at this point how the Ultra gene originated. We are talking about animals with minimal value economically and that gene is now so infused into the corn snake stock that it would be impossible to extract it. If there is any fault laid at anyone's feet for this, then yes, go ahead and bash those people who distributed those animals under false pretenses. They are not the first, and will definitely not be the last. As to what anyone can do about it now, well then please tell me your plan.

Although I definitely prefer to work with *pure* corn snakes, other people have insured that this is no longer possible for any of us to hope for. So, it is really no longer important to me to be overly concerned about it. No, I will not obtain or keep any animals that I am convinced are hybrids, but for those that I already have where there is still some vague remaining doubts or suspicions, then I am just not going to be real concerned about it.

Knowingly and overtly working with hybrids is more the norm than the exception these days and it doesn't appear to have impacted negatively the fame and fortunes of those people doing so. So even if the Ultra does somehow prove to be a hybrid (good luck in doing that, btw), so what? What exactly do you think will happen at that point? The stock market will crash? People will die? Businesses will fail? Reputations will be torn asunder? Actually, I think an overwhelming huge YAWN from most people is what you should expect.

So my stand is STILL, that as far as I can determine, I have no evidence that PROVES that the Ultras are the results of hybridization. And even if you prove it to yourself, you may not necessarily prove it to anyone else. Too many people are on an obvious agenda here to be able to provide any proof that wouldn't itself be questionable based on their own motives.

 

[Eremita]

(...)
As for that original stock, I only have the original female remaining here, she is OLD and looks like hell. She is blind in both eyes and looks like she is on the way out. All anyone would be able to determine from a photo of her would be the wonderment about why I haven't thrown her in the freezer already.

:-offtopic Letting folks with more experience pursue this (my take is that attempting to make one-to-one associations between individual genes and a species is misguided), but I'd love to see a photo. I think it's charming that you have an animal that you cannot tie to commercial value, that you are supporting in her dotage. Show us a pic!

-Sean

 

[TandJ]

Rich rumbled on with the following..

So my stand is STILL, that as far as I can determine, I have no evidence that PROVES that the Ultras are the results of hybridization. And even if you prove it to yourself, you may not necessarily prove it to anyone else. Too many people are on an obvious agenda here to be able to provide any proof that wouldn't itself be questionable based on their own motives.

I totally agree.. Bias based agendas do tend to pop up in communities all over the place, not saying one is more guilty than the other, but is evident..

If I remember subtle conversations from years past, a lot of people used emoryi in with their corn stock to improve the size of the hatchlings. Used emoryi as a base to create different looking amels. I think the cornsnake gene pool has been corrupted for quite some time..What is a pure corn? Certainly there has been so much intergration of outside, foriegn genetics into corns nothing should be considered pure. Obviously, when sellers make the claim of selling only pure corns snakes, I already know it is merely a sales pitch. How can we prove or disprove their claim? We can not prove nor disprove. Grey Oak X Corn ... Emoryi X Corn ... Black Rat X Corn ... Yellow Rat X Corn ... Lueci X Corn ... Who knows what else is in the gene pool now..

Ah well..

Regards.. Tim of T and J

 

[carol]

I still say that doesn't make much logical sense. Granted, there could be some synergistic effect between Type C and some other common allele (or even a new allele that causes high blotch counts itself) lurking around. Both cases are unlikely, but these mutations are unlikely in and of themselves, anyway....lol. Sooo, all of this is possible, and I can't offer anything meaningful on that point yet.

Just crossing your Type C line into a "miami" line can NOT result in blotch counts as high as those you photographed. Again, I'm not saying it makes them hybrids and I am sorry to be harping on this point, but you aren't the first person to outcross a miami corn - but you are the first to get babies with ~60 body blotches (if I remember my estimate correctly!) from the outcross. Heck, Miami's don't have nearly that high of a blotch count. :shrugs: ...or are you sdaying your hypo Miami has blotches that would put a bairdii to shame? If your hypo miami DOES have in the neighborhood of 60 body blotches, then that could be where it came from.......AND should open up interesting question. It wouldn't explain why the hets from the cross (that I think it was you posted had a low blotch count) or why you don't have some with body blotch counts in-between your highs and your lows....or do you?

BTW, I didn't see any like yours in the image list that Rich posted. Those wouldn't have put up a curiosity flag in my mind like the ones you posted did.

I understand if you are thinking that I bred it to an "average" Miami and got high saddle counts, I agree it doesn't make sense. However, as I mentioned earlier, this Hypo Miami came from a Banded project that has a big tendancy to produce animals with high saddle count. Over the years, I've consistantly seen offspring in F1 and F2 from that male with high saddle counts not matter WHAT I breed him too. It's just a very strong trait.

Like I said there are some that are showing EXTREME high saddle count here, and they happen about 1/4 of the time and is showing inheritance patterns. For example, I have 2.2 full sibling breeders. If I breed the females to one male I will get 1/4 of these extremes. If I breed them to the other male, I get none. This does not prove they are hybrids, nor does it prove I've got a new trait. For all we know "Cinder + Motley(or any other common mutation) = Extreme Saddle Count", it very well could be how it reacts with another gene. From what I've seen it looks like Sunkissed does a hell of number on changing how Motley is displayed and I'm starting to believe Bloodred does as well. All I know is I've got some testing to do.

 

[tyflier]

OK...I've been trying to follow this and contribute IF I feel I might have something worthwhile to say...But I have a question...

How can "high saddle count" be considered a "hybrid marker" when it is able to be proven inheritable, at least to some degree, through corn breedings? Doesn't the fact that 2 corns(assumed to be pure corns) that can produce an extremely high saddle count seriously discredit that particular trait as a useable marker for hybrid identification?

Or am I missing something important?... :shrugs:

 

[KJUN]

How can "high saddle count" be considered a "hybrid marker" when it is able to be proven inheritable, at least to some degree, through corn breedings? Doesn't the fact that 2 corns(assumed to be pure corns) that can produce an extremely high saddle count seriously discredit that particular trait as a useable marker for hybrid identification?

1. Well, isn't the coloration of a creamsicle inheritable? If so, does that means it isn't due to hybridization?
2. We are discussing a sadle count that exceed anything seen wild E. guttata. ...and something that isn't the result of a long-term lelective process by a breeder(s).
3. I don't know what other people mean by high saddle count, but I mean a high saddle count as compared to what is seen in any other line of "pure" cornsnakes. The question that has been partly under discussion, and addresses #2 and #3, is if this anamolous pattern that's atypical for
cornsnakes (s) a new mutation, (b) something that is attained inadvertantly as the result of selective breeding towards a primary goal, or (c) the result of some form of hybridization.

In reference to #3(c), I don't like hybrids enough to follow whatis or is not occuring in that world. The blotch count, IF due to hybridization, it too high to be anything from the E. guttata-complex except MAYBE some Intermontane ratsnakes. Even that possibility seems unlikely. It would almost have to mean that the pattern in those high blotch count intermontanes (not all of them have high blotch counts) is due to a single mutation. Possible, but I do not personally think it is very likely. Someone may one day test it, though. Along those lines, I might be acquiring an unrelated female Intermontane this year, and I suspect that it is from a locality without the high blotch counts. I'm just getting it to see what happens when I breed that locality one to my locality ones (different locales, of course). Wouldn't it be neat if that pattern was a simple recessive gene? These valleys were almost definitely populated by a very limited set of founding stock, so there WOULD be a big founder's effect potentially resulting in some VERY unusual looking descendants. (Hmmmmm, I never thought of it before, but the ones with high blotch counts ALSO have thefaded blotch look.....)

Still, I think the idea that "the 75% normals : 25% SUPER high blotch counts is due to a single allele from Intermontane ratsnakes" is pretty far fetched. I don't get it. RichZ's statement that his don't have the SUPER high blotch counts like Carol's pretty much laid to rest the idea in MY mind that Type C and abnormnally high blotch counts are links. Repeat: I think something IS going on differently in carols line than in the ones still at Rich's place. This could easily be due to a new mutation or something less positive. I don't know if carol ahas done it yet or not, but I sure would (in her place) get some more Type C aners directly from Rich and see if that same male and female (the founding pair) give the same high blotch ratios when breed to a DIFFERENT set of Type C aners - and their offspring from those different mates!

Part of this started because I said those high blotch count ones look very similar to some bairdii X cornsnake crosses I've seen: ventral, dorsal, and coloration. If you think about this for a moment, it makes sense. South Florida cornsnakes have a reduced ventral pattern (like bairdii), IF there is a mutation that causes corns to have HIGH blotch counts it would likely mimic the general look of a bairdii, and if you throw on a silvery-aner like mutation, it would look a lot like the colration of many US bairdii. Duh. Even if pure, it WOULD look like a bairdii with that mix, correct? This is no different from a PURE hypo striped corn looking like a 'glade's rat, etc.

Of course, baridii lose their blotches and get stripes with age. I'm still curious, though, what the blotch counts look like in F2 crosses from 50:50 corn:baird hybrid.

All of these discussions just has me scared that I'm likely to just bite the bullet and buy a dang Type C from Rich in '07 or '08 and see for myself what these guys are doing......lol. What's funny, is I don't even find the Type C's that, um, visually stimulating! I DO want to see it in combination with some other alleles, though! I want to see some of the other combinations bad!

KJ

 

[Joejr14]

1. Well, isn't the coloration of a creamsicle inheritable? If so, does that means it isn't due to hybridization?

No, it's not. The oranges and reds are inheritable from the amel gene. If you breed an F1 creamsicle to an amel, breed those offspring to an amel, etc etc---you'll have what appear to be regular amels down the road. I do not believe those will appear to be 'orangey-creamsiclely'.

To my knowledge, Carol has not produced a high saddle count normal from that Z project. Whether or not the high saddle count is coming from the hypo miami that Carol used, or is related to the het Z's she got from Rich---it's showing up only when Z is homozygous.

Have you seen any hybrids that continually breed true like that? What type of hybrids are phenotypically normal in heterozygous form, but magically appear 'hybrid-like' in homozygous form? Last time I checked, when snakes are hybridized, that F1 generation shares traits from the cross--usually on a pretty even split. So if 'Z's are hybrids, why aren't het Z's looking like hybrids? Why do they look like normal cornsnakes?

Part of this started because I said those high blotch count ones look very similar to some bairdii X cornsnake crosses I've seen: ventral, dorsal, and coloration. If you think about this for a moment, it makes sense. South Florida cornsnakes have a reduced ventral pattern (like bairdii), IF there is a mutation that causes corns to have HIGH blotch counts it would likely mimic the general look of a bairdii, and if you throw on a silvery-aner like mutation, it would look a lot like the colration of many US bairdii. Duh. Even if pure, it WOULD look like a bairdii with that mix, correct? This is no different from a PURE hypo striped corn looking like a 'glade's rat, etc.

I wouldn't say that all south florida corns have a reduced ventral pattern. The upper keys stock that we have normally has a reduced or absent ventral pattern---and that's where this mutation came from. Now if Rich is getting Z's, and Carol is getting Z's----yet Rich's don't have the pattern mutation....are you implying that Carol's have a bairdi ancestor? Where did that Bairdi ancestor come from, then? If my memory serves correctly, her hypo miami came from Don S. Is Don crossing Bairdi with corns and selling those hybrids as pure corns? I don't think so. You don't think that a bairdi x corn cross would look like a hybrid right off the bat? Much like any corn x ratsnake cross? I sure think they'd look different---and I don't think you'd get a hypo miami look out of it, either.

But I guess if we're going on saddle counts, then sunkisseds must also be hybrids because they sure have some weird square saddles that are much larger than normal saddles.

 

[tyflier]

Kjun--

I appreciate your post, and effort to explain to me what I might be mssing, but I still don't get it.

You wrote:

1. Well, isn't the coloration of a creamsicle inheritable? If so, does that means it isn't due to hybridization?
2. We are discussing a sadle count that exceed anything seen wild E. guttata. ...and something that isn't the result of a long-term lelective process by a breeder(s).
3. I don't know what other people mean by high saddle count, but I mean a high saddle count as compared to what is seen in any other line of "pure" cornsnakes. The question that has been partly under discussion, and addresses #2 and #3, is if this anamolous pattern that's atypical for
cornsnakes (s) a new mutation, (b) something that is attained inadvertantly as the result of selective breeding towards a primary goal, or (c) the result of some form of hybridization.

...But that doesn't really answer my question. What I want to know is how high saddle counts CAN be used as a hybrid marker IF they appear in pure corns? It seems to me that if one characteristic shows up in both hybrid and pure bloodlines, KNOWN hybrid and pure bloodlines, than that characteristic *should NOT* be used as a hybrid marker.

The only reason I mention this at all is because I have heard of people using the high saddle counts as a reason for "calling hybrid" about anery C snakes, but it is obvious that it is not a characteristic of ONLY hybrids.

IF the color of a creamsicle is ONLY found in creamsicles, and cannot be found in pure amel corns, THAN I would agree that it would be a "hybrid marker". IF, however, that same color can be reproduced in pure corn bloodlines, THAN that color MUST be discounted as a hybrid marker, simply because it has been shown to be inheritable and producable in non-hybrid corns.

That's really the only point I wanted to ask about...

If the color of a creamsicle is ONLY inheritable from creamsicle parents, than the offspring are also inheriting the hybrid genes, and therefor is really irrelevant to my question. My question is in reference to a visual characteristic that can be found in both PURE CORNS and HYBRIDS, making it a very unreliable(at best) hybrid marker. In fact, if that statement is true, it shouldn't be used at all.

And quite honestly, I don't it matters of the corns are wild or line-bred. The simple fact that the high saddle count can be produced in corns AT ALL without intorducing hybrid genes should prove that it is NOT a valid hybrid marker. Even if it only shows up through line-breeding, pure corn blood is pure corn blood. If the high saddle counts show up in pure corns, it cannot be a hybrid marker...