-
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.
Sunglow ???
- Thread starter angusage
- Start date
The_Thunderer
New member
I'm not too good with morphs, but I think a Sunglow is a line-bred version of an amel (sometimes with hypo). I've got both, but my "sunglow" is still tiny. However, I would lean toward sunglow in what I see in the pics...
But that's just me... I'm in no way qualified to make this call. LOL.
But that's just me... I'm in no way qualified to make this call. LOL.
Blue Apple Herps
aka Matthew, PhD
I'd call it an OK sunglow or a really bright amel. It's a nice looking snake either way.
marinneli
Just lovin' Cubes!
Could you get a better belly shot? That's what I started to stare at... In one pic the belly looks white but in another it looks uneven orange... Does she have orange checkers on her belly or not? I'd also like to see a better pic of the white spots on her tail.
Could she be het. Bloodred???
That might explain the bright colours, sunglow-look, lack of belly checkers and maybe even the white spots (pied-sided gene?)... Although the last one on the list is rather rare and Amels het. Bloodred from pied-sided lines wouldn't be likely to end up anywhere without owner knowing exactly what she/he has...
But het. bloodred is what I think......until I see better pics.
Could she be het. Bloodred???
That might explain the bright colours, sunglow-look, lack of belly checkers and maybe even the white spots (pied-sided gene?)... Although the last one on the list is rather rare and Amels het. Bloodred from pied-sided lines wouldn't be likely to end up anywhere without owner knowing exactly what she/he has...
But het. bloodred is what I think......until I see better pics.
Susan
Go Ahead, Make My Day!
That about sums it up! It's a very lovely and bright amel, but just an OK sunglow due to the small amount of white seen.
Weebonilass
New member
Drizzt80
Dakota Corns
I'm curious when those (good 'ole days) were? There's been many posts worth of discussion regarding the origins of Sunglow, and if my memory serves me correctly, even Don Soderberg himself has commented that Sunglow is a low/no white Amel. Why is that important? Because Don Soderberg has been brought up as marketing Sunglow's as being Amel + Hypo. :shrugs:
D80
It's important to note that they're not 'just' amels with no white, but they are bred for a certain 'look'. An amel can have no white at all and not be a sunglow because the color is off.
Sunglows were (Before they were called sunglows.) amel+hypo.
Once they were actually called sunglows, they were line bred amels, AFAIK.
There are other snakes that have a similar look sun-whatevers, sno-glows, etc, but those are different.
The thing to remember is what they look like as adults is what they're named for.
Most sunglows as babies have some white.
Hybinos are variable, and have the sunglow 'look' but lack the bright contrast of the line bred sunglows.
It would be cool to photoshop 4 of 5 of the sunglow, sunkissed, sno-glow, blood stripe, etc as babies, then every 3 months revisit it with another pic showing what they looked like as babies, juvies, yearlings, and adults. Kind of a compare and contrast.
Drizzt80
Dakota Corns
This is what I'm asking you to clarify. I'm well aware that I'm a relative noob to the whole "industry" of cornsnakes, but quite honestly from the conversations I have read and been involved in, it appears to be that the addition of Hypo to the equation of "Sunglow" has been a very recent thing, not "the good 'ole days". Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so. :shrugs:
Be sure to notice that I'm not saying Hypo can't be involved in the mix. I'm saying it's not necessary, nor needed, as your words seem to imply.
Here's a discussion from a few years back that discussed the topic fairly well:
http://www.cornsnakes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20663
(There's another thread, but that one's full of spam and other BS that's not currently worth wading through . . . again. If you're interested, just do a search for "sunlog" and you'll get a couple interesting reads . . . one is 11 pages long - at 40 posts per page.)
D80
reptile_jones
New member
That is what i would say. It is a good starting point for a sunglow project.
MyLittleGuyCyrus
New member
WOW.....whatever he is, he's gorgeous! I would take him regardless!
Hmmmmmmmm...............
Maybe I'm not expressing myself properly, because it sounds to me like we're saying the very same things.
'Sunglows' are selectively bred amels with no white. (That's the current way of getting the 'look'.)
Now please listen to what I'm saying.
BEFORE there were sunglows. (Meaning before the name was coined.) There were animals that had the sunglow 'look'. In other snake types (Like milks.) they were called hybinos (Hypo+albino), but for some strange reason corn snake guys refuse to use the word 'hybino', no idea why.
Rather than call them hybinos, they called them hypomels.
They looked like amels, but with extra 'pop' in the colors.
It was only a matter of time before someone thought they could get more efficient by simply holding back the extra bright amels, line breeding them, and selling the babies as amels until they were so bright that they were worthy of their own name. Eventually, they adults produced this way were brighter than the hypomels, and the popularity of hypomels gave way to sunglows and the newer morphs.
Basically, there were hypomels before there were sunglows, and hypomels aren't very popular anymore. But sunglows are popular, and they took over the niche that hypomels had.
If I'm wrong on this I'll take my lumps, but I think we're saying the same thing, but in different ways..........
Now, sorry for derailing your thread, angusage.
I have sunglows very similar to yours and love them to pieces, no matter what you want to call them, I call them sweet.
If you want to discuss this further Drizzt80, we can do it via PM or start another thread, I don't like crapping on other people's threads.
I have sunglows very similar to yours and love them to pieces, no matter what you want to call them, I call them sweet.
If you want to discuss this further Drizzt80, we can do it via PM or start another thread, I don't like crapping on other people's threads.
Drizzt80
Dakota Corns
I see what you're saying now. I took your original words about the good old days as meaning a Sunglow had to have Hypo in it in order to be one. I fully understand what you're saying.
D80
