In reference to the 'C' Anerythristics...

[jaxom1957]

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...

The problem with that POV is that there is currently no method of proving any corn snake is "pure". Whether wild caught or captive bred, there remains the possibility that, at some point in its lineage, any corn snake might have had a non-corn snake progenitor. Using a wild caught corn snake reduces the probability, but it doesn't eliminate the risk entirely. The appearance of a trait in a corn snake line previously thought of as pure may merely show that the line isn't as pure as was believed, rather than proving that the trait is not the result of hybridizing.

That being the case, the best that any breeder can hope to do is avoid animals that have characteristics that are both unlike most corn snakes and undesirable. The first appearance of any new morph can be described as "unlike other corn snakes", but that doesn't mean that it should be avoided or bred out. Aztec patterning, lavender coloring, disappearing stripes: all set the snake having them apart from the majority, yet all are traits most breeders would find desirable and would seek to maintain in their stock.

IMHO, the entire debate is moot. Neither those who claim that most recently discovered traits are the result of hybridizing nor those that claim each is a spontaneous mutation have such a preponderance of evidence that the other side will be swayed. I'd suggest we adjourn to our separate corners and let the ref announce the draw.

 

[Susan]

Corn snake, intergrade, hybrid...they all taste the same when grilled...alot like indigo, but a touch sweeter... :sidestep:

 

[tyflier]

The problem with that POV is that there is currently no method of proving any corn snake is "pure". Whether wild caught or captive bred, there remains the possibility that, at some point in its lineage, any corn snake might have had a non-corn snake progenitor. Using a wild caught corn snake reduces the probability, but it doesn't eliminate it the risk entirely. The appearance of a trait in a corn snake line previously thought of as pure may merely show that the line isn't as pure as was believed, rather than proving that the trait is not the result of hybridizing.

That being the case, the best that any breeder can hope to do is avoid animals that have characteristics that are both unlike most corn snakes and undesirable. The first appearance of any new morph can be described as "unlike other corn snakes", but that doesn't mean that it should be avoided or bred out. Aztec patterning, lavender coloring, disappearing stripes: all set the snake having them apart from the majority, yet all are traits most breeders would find desirable and would seek to maintain in their stock.

IMHO, the entire debate is moot. Neither those who claim that most recently discovered traits are the result of hybridizing nor those that claim each is a spontaneous mutation have such a preponderance of evidence that the other side will be swayed. I'd suggest we adjourn to our separate corners and let the ref announce the draw.

I completely understand and agree with you...100%. I doubt I could have stated as eloquently myself.

However, not everyone feels the same way. I personally believe that it is a practice in futility to argue this matter, but I wanted to point out my concerns with some of the "proof" that people are using to call a corn a hybrid.

Quite simply, it doesn't matter what my opinion is as regards the existence of pure corns(do they even exist anymore? I don't think so...). When people use a visual characteristic that is found in both KNOWN hybrids and assumed pure corns, that charaqcteristic becomes null as an identifier. If it exists in what is assumed to be "as pure as possible" corns, it is either a corn snake trait, or the corns are not pure. If there is no such thing as a pure corn, the discussion of hybrid markers is a moot point, because all corns are hybrids. If all corns are not hybrids, and "pure" corns show the same trait as hybrids, than that trait cannot be used as a marker.

It only works one way, and I think there are people that want the best of both worlds. They want to claim that they have "pure corns", but they also want to claim that "pure corn traits" describe a hybrid. That is NOT a two-way street...it CAN'T be. They are a contradictory set of circumstances that cannot co-exist. :shrugs: :shrugs:

 

[Rich Z]

The problem with that POV is that there is currently no method of proving any corn snake is "pure". Whether wild caught or captive bred, there remains the possibility that, at some point in its lineage, any corn snake might have had a non-corn snake progenitor. Using a wild caught corn snake reduces the probability, but it doesn't eliminate the risk entirely. The appearance of a trait in a corn snake line previously thought of as pure may merely show that the line isn't as pure as was believed, rather than proving that the trait is not the result of hybridizing.

That being the case, the best that any breeder can hope to do is avoid animals that have characteristics that are both unlike most corn snakes and undesirable. The first appearance of any new morph can be described as "unlike other corn snakes", but that doesn't mean that it should be avoided or bred out. Aztec patterning, lavender coloring, disappearing stripes: all set the snake having them apart from the majority, yet all are traits most breeders would find desirable and would seek to maintain in their stock.

IMHO, the entire debate is moot. Neither those who claim that most recently discovered traits are the result of hybridizing nor those that claim each is a spontaneous mutation have such a preponderance of evidence that the other side will be swayed. I'd suggest we adjourn to our separate corners and let the ref announce the draw.

Well, as a model of determining "purity" in a corn snake the use of the criteria of "unlike most other corns" and "undesirable" has a noticeable flaw. "Desirableness" is in the eye of the beholder and in no manner can be used as a definitive method of determining the status of purity in any particular animal. Lord knows I have seen some butt ugly corn snakes that were out in the wild and just the fact of them BEING so ugly made them "unlike most other corns" I had seen and therefore "undesirable". I have many times flipped over a board or piece of bark, seen the corn snake underneath, said "ugh", and put the cover right back over that poor ugly creature. :grin01: I seriously doubt it was a hybrid, but "desirable", it DEFINITELY was not!

There are others who will tell you they don't find "Butter", or "Lavender", or "Stripes", or "Miami Phase" corns at all desirable. Very few facts are influenced by any one's personal opinion of them.

Actually the HOLY GRAIL that many of us hope for in engaging in breeding corn snakes is to actually produce something new. Something "unlike most other corns". I doubt there is anyone reading this post right now that would SERIOUSLY hate to have a new gene pop up in a clutch of eggs they are incubating. THAT, above many other goals, is one of the primary driving forces for many of us breeding these critters. Yeah, most realize how long of a shot it is, but the HOPE and WISHING is certainly there, regardless. Hopefully that new gene will be "desirable" in a manner other than just it's uniqueness. But if not, then can anyone realistically claim that hatching out an ugly spontaneous mutation MUST be the results of hybridization? Simply based on some subjective criteria such as "desirability"? "Different" and "ugly" is hybrid. "Different" and "attractive" is pure. :crazy02:

Of course, I guess there does have to be some humor behind the situation whereby the holy grail GOAL of captive breeding being to have a new gene pop up is now almost universally labelled as a hybrid by default unless somehow proven (if not actually by proveable facts, then by general majority consensus OPINION) to be "pure"........

 

[jaxom1957]

Well, as a model of determining "purity" in a corn snake the use of the criteria of "unlike most other corns" and "undesirable" has a noticeable flaw. "Desirableness" is in the eye of the beholder and in no manner can be used as a definitive method of determining the status of purity in any particular animal.

Then it is probably good that I did not put them forth as defining purity; I put them forth as what I view as factors to avoid when breeding corn snakes. Every breeder will decide for themselves what is desirable. How willing others are to buy from a breeder will let them know if others agree with their taste.

Lord knows I have seen some butt ugly corn snakes that were out in the wild and just the fact of them BEING so ugly made them "unlike most other corns" I had seen and therefore "undesirable". I have many times flipped over a board or piece of bark, seen the corn snake underneath, said "ugh", and put the cover right back over that poor ugly creature.

Which makes my point: we should be striving to produce the finest examples of corn snakes we can. As I don't view purity as the controlling factor, I wouldn't be breeding to an ugly animal, even if it could be shown to be 100%, undiluted e. gutatta. I'd rather breed to a beautiful specimen, even one I knew to contain outside genes, if doing so was likely to produce snakes I felt best exemplified my personal view of corn snake excellence.

There are others who will tell you they don't find "Butter", or "Lavender", or "Stripes", or "Miami Phase" corns at all desirable. Very few facts are influenced by any one's personal opinion of them.

Those who don't like a morph probably shouldn't be breeding it. By the same token, those who like a morph shouldn't be dissuaded from breeding it just because other doubt the genetic purity of the line.

Actually the HOLY GRAIL that many of us hope for in engaging in breeding corn snakes is to actually produce something new. Something "unlike most other corns". I doubt there is anyone reading this post right now that would SERIOUSLY hate to have a new gene pop up in a clutch of eggs they are incubating. THAT, above many other goals, is one of the primary driving forces for many of us breeding these critters.

I applaud those breeders with such lofty goals, and appreciate the efforts. However, just being new isn't enough: the gene must also, at least in someone's mind, add more than it subtracts from the snake. New and ugly isn't likely to be anyone's goal.

Hopefully that new gene will be "desirable" in a manner other than just it's uniqueness. But if not, then can anyone realistically claim that hatching out an ugly spontaneous mutation MUST be the results of hybridization? Simply based on some subjective criteria such as "desirability"? "Different" and "ugly" is hybrid. "Different" and "attractive" is pure.

Again, nowhere did I equate newness or beauty with purity, or ugliness with hybridizing. I stated what I believe should be factors to consider when breeding. As I've stated on several occasions, I find the debate pointless, and do not care about the source of a morph nearly as much as I care about the end product: a beautiful snake that still conveys the inherent qualities that drew me to the species.

Of course, I guess there does have to be some humor behind the situation whereby the holy grail GOAL of captive breeding being to have a new gene pop up is now almost universally labelled as a hybrid by default unless somehow proven (if not actually by proveable facts, then by general majority consensus OPINION) to be "pure"........

A statement with which I completely agree.

 

[carol]

However, just being new isn't enough: the gene must also, at least in someone's mind, add more than it subtracts from the snake. New and ugly isn't likely to be anyone's goal.

Ahh... but ugly is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Rich Z]

Ahh... but ugly is in the eye of the beholder.

Man, ain't THAT the truth! All I need to do is to walk by a table filled with ball pythons priced at $5,000 to $20,000 to have that fact driven home to me.......... :roflmao: :roflmao:

No offense to anyone who likes them, but they just don't do a THING for me. :shrugs:

 

[tricksterpup]

Man, ain't THAT the truth! All I need to do is to walk by a table filled with ball pythons priced at $5,000 to $20,000 to have that fact driven home to me.......... :roflmao: :roflmao:

No offense to anyone who likes them, but they just don't do a THING for me. :shrugs:

:-offtopic But yeah personally I find paying those prices a bit to much for a ball. Yeah, call me one of those, Is a Ball python worth $ 20,000 even if it jumped up and sang the star spangle banner?
Yeesh, its cheaper to buy a pair of Indigos. At least if you are breeding them, you are preventing a species from dying off. Ok, off soap box.

 

[Rich Z]

:-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

Better late than never, I guess..........

This is the original female Ultra Hypo that I bought from Mike Falcon.

She is NOT opaque. Blind as a bat.

 

[LindsayMarie]

She is neat looking. Sorry to hear she cant see Thanks for showing us her picture. If you want I can adopt her as a pet and keep you updated! Beatiful Rich and thanks. Lindsay

 

[Eremita]

Hey, she doesn't look bad at all; I guess it makes sense that hypos don't have to deal with darkening when they get old. Thanks for humoring me.

:cheers:
-Sean

 

[ecreipeoj]

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.

My agenda with the Ultras is to report information that I discovered during our Hypo Test Breeding Project. This is not new information, just information that continues to be conveniently forgotten over the years. If you remember, we had two proven hypos at the time. Today, I would say that we have 5 and the number will climb soon.

I personally believe that Ultras had Gray Rat bred into them in the beginning. This was done by somebody else, and it can not be changed. It the short history of the Ultras, anybody can see it was spread into our Corns before we even knew what Ultra were. Today, after a couple of years of some of the biggest breeders in the country breeding them into all Corn Snake lines, the mixing is pretty much complete.

I do not have an agenda against Ultras. I am sick and tired of the Political PR that is constantly going on, in an attempt to hold onto the purity of our MUTANT Corns. “As far as I know, sounds like Clinton’s testimony during his impeachment hearings, and I guess it works, but it makes me sick.

We love our Mutant Corns, and today they can not be pure. I do not see a rush to register wild caught Pure Corns and prices do not suggest they are the future. Triple, Quad and on, morphs are the future and they will include Amel, which I am sorry to say, has been the main culprit in introducing hybrid genes into our Mutants and Ultra stands side by side with Amel.

My plan with the Ultras is to produce Ultramel Bloods het Pied-sided this year, and perhaps Pied-sided Ultramel Bloods in a couple of years. I did get lucky and discovered the Lava gene in my colony, and it is a great gene, but there are 14 other great Corn Snake MUTANT genes, and I love all of them. I have a lot of time invested in Hypo and Sunkissed Projects as well as Ultra and Lavas. I just have a slight lead with the Lavas, but I bet Carol beats me to Lava Bloods this year, and I wish her luck.

I got lucky and found my Holly Grail, and I have created a few one of a kinds, which is the second Holly Grail and what keeps many of us old timers still in the hunt. I challenge everybody to get excited about Corns again, and jump in on the quest for the second Holly Grail and see how far we can take our Mutants.

Ultras are an exciting new Mutant gene, and with Amels help, Ultramel is leap frogging ahead at warp speed to many new Holly Grails for a lot of breeders. Last year, I produced an Ultramel Lavender Motley and it was the first year I ever bred Ultras. If that is not going warp speed then I don’t know what is. Prices may fall, but it is going to be a fun ride, and I will be able to live with the prices Ultramels will settle at compared to Amels.


Here is an Ultra I produced last year, from a Shivers Ultramel Motley het Caramel x Caramel het Ultra, out crossed once from Shivers. Her offspring will look like 100% Corns if bred to just about any other Corn Snake line, but I can still see some Gray Rat in her. I happen to have some Gray Rats, so it helps to see some of their traits, or so it seems to me.

 

[ecreipeoj]

This is the original female Ultra Hypo that I bought from Mike Falcon.

Has she proven to be an Ultra or Ultramel? Did you find Hypo in her?

I ask these questions, knowing that none of us had a clue what Ultra was when you probably bred her, but you might remember.

 

[Rich Z]

Has she proven to be an Ultra or Ultramel? Did you find Hypo in her?

I ask these questions, knowing that none of us had a clue what Ultra was when you probably bred her, but you might remember.

In checking back on my records, in 2005 I bred her with an Opal. Got 5 good eggs, 5 of which were amels and 2 ultramels. In 2006 I bred her with an amelanistic blood red. Got 11 eggs, of which only 7 hatched. 5 ultramels and 2 amels. So obviously she is an Ultramel.

In 2002 I bred her with a hypo lavender and got all normals, so apparently she is not carrying standard 'A' hypomelanism. At least not as long as that hypo lavender wasn't something else other than the standard hypo. No bets on that one. :shrugs: