• 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.

On the subject of supposedly blue corns...

very interesting...

Good Point Joe! Although, I am not entirely familiar with Rich's Silver Queen Ghost...maybe he did get hell for it but decided to do it anyway and if its been a long enough time since he first started offering it, maybe its just become more readily accepted...due to statute of limitations or something..lol. I'd be interested if there is a story about it from Rich.

I checked out his description again on the Silver Queen and it clearly states that the Silver Queen is a variant of a Ghost. It also states that its Anery A + Hypo and that he did breeding trials. I don't know if is comparable since Rich leaves nothing out to really question it. Its simply a variant of ghost.

Maybe if labeled differently, a 'blue' corn would not draw up flags by so many. I personally would not see a problem if someone wanted to label their variations of existing morphs differently as long as they keep the original name in there somewhere....i.e. super red okeetees or high yellow butters...possibilites are endless but who knows...? :)

Hurley, I re-read his description again...it seems that the silver queen characteristic is either attached to the hypomelanistic gene from a particular miami phase line OR his corns het for silver queen are simply carrying both the hypo and anery A from that line only, meaning if breed with other corns het for silver queen, you may end up with a SQ, otherwise I'd assume the possibility of SQ appearence would be lost due to outcrossing.
 
I don't remember anyone going on about the Silver Queens. I don't really have a problem giving something a different name if it's really warrented to make a distinction. But, please represent it as such. Rich never has claimed that his Silver Queens were not regular ghosts, they look different. If you go to his site and read his description you will see this. I feel they are being represented fairly. I mean really, Sunglows are just Amelanistic corns:D I do hope we see more info. This is an interesting thread. Thanks for tracking all this down.

Silver Queen Ghost
 
Rich and I have spoken about his SQ ghosts, and (without trying to speak for him), he has told me that even he has questions about the accuracy of selling hypos het for SQ. He freely admits that this is not completely accurate, and does not hide that fact at all. However, he said he saw no other way for him to explain the background of the animal in question, without going into the whole ordeal on every single sale. I'll let each of you determine the wisdom of his final decision for yourself.

What do you think when you see someone writing about amels het for sunglow? I think to myself "That's not right", but I understand what they're trying to convey. I might try to word it differently, but I wouldn't attack that person for it.
 
I much prefer to say "het for amel, from sunglow bloodlines". Gets the point across, but more accurately.

But I am guilty of selling "het for bloodred", which I don't feel is as accurate as using the "het for amel." term. But it is a tricky description, and I haven't found a better way to describe it yet.
 
I found a blue corn.

That is a great example that perhaps our expectations of a Blue Corn may be just a little bit high, but they said landing on the moon was impossible.
 
Breeders responce

Well here is some excerpts from some of the emails I received from the breeder of the Blue Motleys in question. Does anybody think he did anything wrong? I agree that Rich has explained the Silver Queens very well on his site. Some people don’t have sites to explain the snakes they offer. I also question calling something het for sunglow and Kathy’s suggestion as to how she would explain it is perfect in my opinion. I have just became interested in Bloodreds again, and was baffled at seeing corns referred to as Normal het Bloodred or Charcoal het bloodred as a description for the genetics involved. I understand it, but I don’t believe it is accurate. It is like saying that a corn is het for a recessive gene and het for color phase genes. I think Charcoal out of Bloodreds would be better, like Kathy suggested, but would require more typing.


_____________________________________________________________

These animals were snakes that I bought from a local wholesale dealer. He bought the snakes as anery motleys.

I did not even coin the name Blue Motley.

We bred the male to a pewter which made normal babies. And we bred it to an anery A which did not produce eggs.

This trio of breeders is het. for ghost also, because they consistently produce about 25% ghosts per clutch.

I am not trying to come up with a new morph nor did I think I had anything different to start with other than a really light colored anery motley.

I did not market this snake as anything but a Anery Motley.

I started selling these snakes at a local show. The first clutch was bought before the show was open by the breeders that were there (including some well known breeders).

The breeders in turn started calling them blue motleys and the name kind of stuck.

Only after the fact, did I realize this was such an in demand snake.

I guess I will just wait before I sell any babies this year until I have bred it to a few more animals.

I am not looking for this snake to be accepted in the genetics forum, Nor did I post an ad anywhere to sell them.
 
Re: I found a blue corn.

ecreipeoj said:
That is a great example that perhaps our expectations of a Blue Corn may be just a little bit high, but they said landing on the moon was impossible.
Click to expand...

That wasn't really what I had expected. That pic is a bit over the top:D

I just expected some shade of blue. I don't see that in those pictured.
 
IMO the difference is that silverqueens stand out in a crowd, to me anyway. The blue motleys look like any other anery motley. My only problem with silverqueens is not the name, but the usage of "het." I do understand Rich's dilemma there, but I still don't like that it will help the definition creep away from having the useful meaning it does right now.

It does look like some people use "het" to mean "part." IOW, het just means to them that it came from a parent with that name, and has nothing to do with specific genes. From what I've gathered in conversations with people who misuse it that way, they have no concept of what "het for albino" really means. To them, the meaning goes no deeper than "it came from an albino." Thus they have snow corns that are "het for albino" and normals double het for Okeetee and Miami, among others.

An amel can't be het for sunglow. Nor can an amel be het for candycane. However, I'm willing to accept a pair of "normals that throw candycanes because they've proven to do so" as "het for candycane" in the same way as "amel het for snow" is used.

As far as bloodred goes, it depends. The way I understand it, the pattern part of it recovers like a simple trait. So I think it's correct to say something is het for that pattern... the problem is that the selectively-bred bloodreds also go by the same name. If we discovered a recessive gene that made the black borders ten times thicker and it got named Okeetee, and it happened that this trait originated in Okeetee-looking lines, then something could be het for that "Okeetee" trait, but it would cause mass confusion. ;)

IMO we need a name for something that expresses only the head/belly/side pattern associated with bloodreds. Then there won't be so much confusion when something is het for that trait... nobody will expect super-red bloodreds to appear in their offspring.

That topic has gone by several times and a lot of names were suggested, but nobody tried them out, really. Can we try that one again and maybe make an agreement beforehand to stick to whatever "wins" in a poll after like a week of discussions? Maybe we could even get that in time for Kathy to put it as a suggested name in the upcoming second release of the Manual, so it gets around. :)
 
Ok,
now you guys will have to work with me on this one.. I dont understand all the genetic talk..
I PURCHASED THESE FROM BAYOU, they were not labled ANERY CORNS, i still have the deli cups they were in, and it just says *blue motley corn*..
I hope no-one thinks that i am in any way trying to decieve someone.. I was completely honest in my ad..
 
"het" for bloodred...

In early generations of bloodred breeding, I found the checkers (and lack of them) to be a simple recessive trait. If only things could stay so simple!! In recent generations, I was surprised to find that it wasn't just an either/or trait after all, as I had thought (and hoped!). After many generations of inbreeding and outcrossing, I began to see "bloodreds" that had just a few smidgeons of dark partial checks right near the edges of the belly. Very insignificant looking though. A particular male "blood", het for hypo, was to be one of my main breeders a few years ago. Not a great blood, too much pattern, but not bad and could produce hypo bloods. But lo and behold! Some of his babies had fully checkered bellies even when their moms were pure, uncheckered bloods - and dad was nearly so! A big disappointment - he is no longer in my collection. So now I check REALLY carefully for ventral partial checks - it isn't as simple as I thought.
 
I know that I am way too cynical, and I really do try not to be, but ...

Did anyone else notice that BOTH the blue motley corns and the pink motlies, when bred to anery A animals, did not produce any viable babies to check???


Joe Pierce reported from his conversation with the original breeder saying that: "Blue X anery A = infertile eggs. I know, I know, but they didn't have to tell us this either." In fact, he later quoted the breeder as saying, "We bred the male to a pewter which made normal babies. And we bred it to an anery A which did not produce eggs."


The pink motley story said: "We also breed them to an anery "a" but the female re absorbed so we will have to wait until next year to see what we get off of that breeding."



I am not suggesting anything with this, folks. I am not even saying that there is adefinitive connection between the pink and blue motlies. I just hate coincidences, that's all.

You'll all have to decide for yourselves ...

:eek:
 
Yes, these are the same

These are the same "Blue" Motleys in question. One of the people identified on the other thread, is the breeder that I have been emailing. I was sent some photos to my email address, and I have to say that these "Blue" Motley or their offspring are stunning! I still see a obsidian type look to the color of the "Blues"
 
My mistake

I incorrectly reported that the Blue X anery A produced infertile eggs. I was repling based upon what I had just read and had not absorbed what I had read well enough I guess.

My email from the breeders said that they did not get any eggs, which is the same thing as being re-absorbed. I have had snakes re-absorb as well. I have no idea why some re-absorb and others lay plugs.
 
If those animals are all of the same bloodlines, I think that these are likely anery a motlies, with some form of hypo floating around in them. That would explain the 50/50 split between the "blues" and the ghost looking ones that later got more pink on them. I have seen aneries het for hypo that appear to almost show their "hetness" by being extraordinarily light and "blueish" when compared to non-het siblings.

I will be interested to see what a successful cross to anery A will show, but I'd be willing to say in advance that anery A babies will likely come out of those eggs.
 
Re: "het" for bloodred...

Kathy, I'll agree with you that it's not recessive. ;) I don't think anyone has "the" answer, but IMO there is a pretty good answer. That is, treating bloodred as a simple co-dominant which is variable in its amount of dominance/recessiveness.

(Which would not be surprising with a pattern trait. Compare its variability to motley's effect on the dorsal pattern when expressed... you know generally what type of pattern to expect but not how much of it will show on any individual.)

The reason I don't believe it's a multi-gene pattern is because even if only two genes are involved, it drops the outcomes from 1 in 4, to 1 in 16 of the F2s expressing the pattern. Three genes drops it to 1 in 64. This would make pewters much more difficult to produce.

Also, I haven't (yet;)) heard of anything that defies the inheritance patterns you'd expect from a simple trait, as long as you view it as co-dominant instead of recessive.
Kathy Love said:
After many generations of inbreeding and outcrossing, I began to see "bloodreds" that had just a few smidgeons of dark partial checks right near the edges of the belly. Very insignificant looking though. A particular male "blood", het for hypo, was to be one of my main breeders a few years ago. Not a great blood, too much pattern, but not bad and could produce hypo bloods. But lo and behold! Some of his babies had fully checkered bellies even when their moms were pure, uncheckered bloods - and dad was nearly so!
Click to expand...
This summer I saw a similar case: Sean at VMS showed me an amel (from Pewter X Butter) which would have fooled most people into thinking it's a bloodred. He showed it to me because he didn't know what to call it. (At the time, I wasn't sure either.)

Both of the above examples fit within the rules. A few weeks ago we were talking about a dominant "paint" trait in horses in another thread. One of the things I read about it was that some horses carrying this dominant gene could look almost completely normal. They showed detectable signs, though. They would throw typical "paint" offspring, as you'd expect... because they were still carrying that dominant gene.

The same could be applied to bloodred, if you were to see the "normal" side as the dominant one. Sometimes when the dominant (normal) is paired with the "recessive" (bloodred) the dominant normal gene is only barely expressed. IMO this matches the cases you and Sean both witnessed where the dominant gene was almost overridden by the "recessive" counterpart. I agree that one subtle tip-off (showing it's not "homozygous") might be the little edging of "checkers" on the sides of the belly.

I'm not saying that it's "the" answer, but it's IMO a simple and reasonably accurate portrayal of how it behaves, and (taken with a grain of salt) the most practical way to deal with it at the moment. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top