Sunglow Poll:

[snakepimp]

I would like to state, for the record, that I did not attack nor criticize anyone directly.
I was not referring specifically to you, Tom. I have merely noticed a trend in "group thinking" that places a de facto presence of hypomelanism when the word "Sunglow" is used, and I thought that the popularity of the Sunglow boa might have something to do with it. I was openly postulating in "print"...
I don't know what other members have been a pain in your @$$, but I assure you it was not I.

 

[TBurkeIII]

my apologies are extended to you (jeremy) my misinterpretation. while "hypo/amel" is the only way to create a sunglow in a boa, i know it does not hold true with corns, my opinion on it is simply that it could not hurt to be homo for hypo as well. i have a female sunglow motley that i recieved from Kathy Love in '03 and if she proves out not to be homo for hypo i will not be disappointed. with line bred animals i believe they should be held to a very high standard, however the best sunglows look is what other breeders should strive for. if that should include the animals being homo for hypo as well as amel than so be it.

 

[snakepimp]

Understood, no problem.
I am a big fan of the Burke Reptiles Boas, by the way, some of the best I have ever seen (some of the best there are..) I intend to get a female albino arabesque, or perhaps just a arabesque het, this year.
:wavey:

 

[CornCrazy]

I do not think that hypo should be a requirement for a "non-white" amel to be considered a sunglow. I have some gorgeous sunglow mots that are (as far as I know) NOT homo hypo. They are amazing snakes.

Here are a couple of them.
2003 Female

2004 Male

 

[Hurley]

*raises hand* - has never intentionally bred for sunglows.

....but I was just wondering, where's the selection on the Poll for "any amel (regardless of hypo status) that has no white"?

BTW, Terri, nice sunglow.

 

[mbdorfer]

Those are really sweet, especially the female. As I said earlier, don't care if hypo is involved or not, if it is...........BONUS! HeHe, love hypos :cheers:

 

[DdotSpot]

*raises hand* - has never intentionally bred for sunglows.

....but I was just wondering, where's the selection on the Poll for "any amel (regardless of hypo status) that has no white"?

BTW, Terri, nice sunglow.

I was wondering that myself

 

[CornCrazy]

Thanks! By the way, the female was sold to me an an amel mot...not a sunglow mot.

 

[mbdorfer]

Thanks! By the way, the female was sold to me an an amel mot...not a sunglow mot.

There is so much variation in the Amel Mots I have seen thus far. I picked one up in Tampa from John at Suncoast, I had my pick of 6 females and no two were alike. My girl has no white, yet doesn't have that Sunglow "look"
Yours is just outrageous, maybe it's the "sun glowing" on her in that outdoor shot.

 

[Hurley]

Yeah, I think that many many amel mots grow into sunglow mots by virtue of motley's effect on the pattern...thinning the borders to nothing. One of the nice features of the motley gene, if I may say so. Unless you are Clint and are trying to make Okeetee motleys. :sidestep:

 

[ultimatecorns]

I agree with Hurley.
Sorry to mention this after the fact but the poll, to be acurate (assuming you can get enough of a sampling to get any external validity) you should have included the following option:
sunglow = no white amel that can be homo for hypo

Beause the above option is lacking, I can't vote.

my whole point is that I was getting beat up for daring to suggest that there are various types of sunglows out there. I should not have made it sound like I was denegrating amel only sunglows, but I do think the hypo gene does make em sizzle.

grace

 

[ecreipeoj]

I didn’t know this was going to turn into a who’s right or wrong tread. I think we all know that old school Sunglows are no white Amels. I prefer the look of a Hypo Sunglow myself. Sunglow Boas never even crossed my mind, but some boa people may have this impression when they first hear about Sunglow Corns. It is amazing how many Corn Snake names have been borrowed or stolen by other groups of reptile hobbyist. Our name games, usually produce winners!

I was talking to Don S a few years ago about some of his Sunglow Motleys and he had been using the Hypo gene to make his brighter. I ended up acquiring some from him and a Hypo Sunglow does seem to have a glossier look to them that reflects light better than a Sunglow. They also seem to be a different shade of orange, than non hypo Sunglows. I have noticed this in other lines of hypo Amels like my Coral Snows. They are very glossy in appearance, compared to Snows. I would say the same thing about Hypo Amels.

Most people think that Amel mask Hypo, but I do not think this is completely true. To the trained eye, the added hypo gene is still effecting the phenotype. The brown bag test always comes up to support the masking theory, but there are differences among clutch mates which demonstrates that the hypo gene in not completely mask.

Now we all know that all snakes look glossy to some point, but I have produced Sunglows that are very flat in appearance, some with a regular glossy finish to them and then the Hypo Sunglows have a brilliant glossy finish to them. Sunglows are no white amels, but all Sunglows are not created equal. The flat looking ones that I produce fit the descriptive requirements for a Sunglow, but there is nothing glowing about them. Every Hypo Sunglow that I have ever seen requires sunglasses to view them. I also prefer Sunglows to be on the orange side rather than red. The Hypo genes seems to help in this area as well.

 

[ultimatecorns]

Great post Joe,

What is the bag test?

 

[Joejr14]

Sorry to mention this after the fact but the poll, to be acurate (assuming you can get enough of a sampling to get any external validity) you should have included the following option:
sunglow = no white amel that can be homo for hypo

Beause the above option is lacking, I can't vote.
grace

Sure you can vote.

Selectively bred Amel, no Hypo required (No white) = no white amel that can be homo hypo.

They key word is required. The option doesn't say 'no hypo allowed'.

 

[ecreipeoj]

Great post Joe,

What is the bag test?

The “Brown Bag Test” means that you put a number of mixed Corn Snakes of similar types into a bag and if a morph is to be recognized you have to be able to pick all of that type out of the bag easily.

The problem with Hypo Amels and Amel Lavas is that since amels can vary so much that some variations of normal amels are very similar, so in a bag of mixed Amel Corns, you may not be able to pick them out with 100% certainty.

Very orange normal Amels look a great deal like Hypo Amels and Amel Lavas. I personally think that I have looked at enough Amel Lavas that I could pick them out, but I would have to take my time and look for some of the other little differences in them other than just the color alone. I have not seen enough Hypo Amels to know if this is possible.

 

[ultimatecorns]

Actually, joejr14, I can't vote
"Selectively bred Amel, no Hypo required (No white) = no white amel that can be homo hypo."

Unless you think that one generation is selctive breeding.

Yes there was some selective breeding, but nothing like what Kathy has done.

I just thought that there should have been the option of a no white amel that may contain hypo.

Not to toot my own horn, but I do hold a M.A. from University of Florida in Public Policy Analysis, and a large part of that course work was in survey design.

 

[Serpwidgets]

Just for the record, once again, a definition is valid or not based on its usage. This is the same thing with The Ridiculous Okeetee Debate^TM...

If a sufficient number of people use sunglow to mean "no-white amel," then that is valid definition of sunglow.

If a sufficient number of people use sunglow to mean "amel + hypo, even if it has white on it" then that is a valid definition of sunglow.

If a sufficient number of people use sunglow to mean "a green and purple snake with swirly stripes and one eyeball" then that is a valid definition of sunglow.

If there are multiple definitions, it is up to the speaker/writer to place it in the proper context, or the listener/reader to ask for clarification. This is how language has always worked, and always will work.

It does not matter what anyone else's definition is, it does not magically exclude any other definition. The validity of definition A does not and cannot invalidate definition B, and vice versa.

 

[Menhir]

Just a hint - judging a "Sunglow Motley" is a little tricky, cause many many Motleys show no White but I'd expect Sunglow Motley x Sunglow making all Sunglows. Do you think that is true for every Sunglow Motley out there?

 

[Serpwidgets]

Just a hint - judging a "Sunglow Motley" is a little tricky, cause many many Motleys show no White but I'd expect Sunglow Motley x Sunglow making all Sunglows. Do you think that is true for every Sunglow Motley out there?

Heh, but this test invalidates all "selectively bred" morphs. Are you prepared to say that zigzags, even if every saddle is connected into one big zipper, are not zigzags unless they produce zigzags in all cases where they are bred to zigzags?

 

[Menhir]

Heh, but this test invalidates all "selectively bred" morphs.

No, that is not true for HypoMiami, for an example.

Are you prepared to say that zigzags, even if every saddle is connected into one big zipper, are not zigzags unless they produce zigzags in all cases where they are bred to zigzags?

Ok, I see ZigZag is a little tricky, I think we both know that.
My post was more like a question, is it really just the look that counts or not?!? Should we name every "amel" animal that lacks white Sunglow or do we expect Sunglow x Sunglow+"Another trait" to give Sunglows.

It's an equal discussion to "should a HypoBloodred give me all Bloodreds when bred to a normal Blood or do I get just "diffused" animals."
Know what I mean?