The Bloodred "Gene"

[Hurley]

<i>I posted this thread on 'some other corn forum', I figured I'd ask here as well to get as many opinions as possible.</i>

With all the talk recently about bloods and motleys and what is/is not a bloodred, I just have a general consensus question to ask (as well as the need to get an acceptable standard for 'bloodred' together to put in the Corn Morph Standards that are presently being compiled by committee).

I would like to ask everyone what their opinion is of the "bloodred" morph, more specifically the part of bloodred that defines it AS a bloodred. It seems to me (and I am by no means an expert) that there is a more-or-less recessive bloodred (incompletely codominant?) pattern gene at work that has very little to do with how red the animal is...which would make the name 'bloodred' somewhat of a misnomer. True, these guys have been selectively bred to enhance the reds, and I think the pattern trait has a 'smudging' effect on the melanin which would enhance the appearance of a bloodred's reds (much like the hypo effect, imho) which tends to reduce the pattern with time, but do you really think the 'red' of a bloodred has anything to do with the "bloodred gene"? Are our brightest and best red-colored bloods just very nice examples of selectively bred 'bloodred' pattern morphed corns?

In my opinion, I define a bloodred by the pattern...plain belly (with or without color encroaching/peppering the edges, etc.), smudging/smearing/reduction of side pattern, stretched head pattern with grey heads (or whitish depending on the morph) as hatchlings, and a diminishing of dorsal pattern with time.

Let's hear some discussion on this morph. I hope it will greatly help with 'defining' the morph and trying to come to some agreement on it.

Thanks for your opinions and help,
Hurley

 

[Rich Z]

Well, part of the problem is that the 'Bloodreds' we see today really aren't the same thing that we had 15 or more years ago. The original ones were VERY deep red colored, with pretty much COMPLETELY stark white bellies. They also had a reputation of being incredibly stubborn about feeding readily, so the solution to that problem was to outcross them into stronger feeding lines in order to try to correct what became a fatal problem with this cultivar. When I say 'fatal', I mean from a marketing standpoint. There was a period of time when NO ONE wanted to buy these things because of that reputation. Consequently during that period, many of the original Bloodreds were lost as people abandoned working with this cultivar.

So yes, apparently we have all been successful in correcting that feeding deficiency, but it was at a pretty severe penalty we paid for it. The Bloodreds of today aren't the same thing any longer. Many of the abdomens are heavily blotched with orange, rather than that pure stark white I remember. The general coloration today is more of an orange-red rather than a dark rich, almost burgundy, red of those original animals. The pattern is also more pronounced, even on the better looking ones, likely because the ground color has lightened up to where the pattern just seems more noticeable.

I have exactly ONE of this original strain still remaining, and she is getting pretty old. And I am holding back every baby I get from her.

Most of my Bloodreds come from outcrossed projects any more. I don't believe I have bred Bloodred to Bloodred for a few years now. So this gives me the opportunity to have to pick through a pile of baby snakes in a clutch and make a determination of whether a baby makes the grade as a Bloodred or not. In some instances it's pretty obvious, to me anyway, but in others I may have to scratch my head for a few moments. Bear in mind that generally when I am doing this sort of thing, I have a clutch of babies sitting on the counter, and an opened snake bag nearby that I am dumping all normal corns into in order to ship them out to a wholesaler. So this is a do-or-die (hopefully not literally!) for the babies as I determine their fate.

A GOOD baby Bloodred, IMHO, has the following characteristics:

(1) Head is very reduced in pattern, with gray coloration pretty much completely overpowering the usual orange pigment. Oftentimes you can see what looks like a deathhead, or skull pattern if you squint your eyes just right.

(2) Abdomen is nearly completely white, or with some splotches of orange scattered here and there. There is NO black on the abdomen at all.

(3) The lateral areas of the body are pretty much devoid of pattern, or very faintly so. There can be a pretty strong pattern dead center on the dorsal area, however. Generally the more reduced the pattern, the better off it is.

Now the ones that might have me scratching my head trying to determine if they should get dropped in the bag or not will have these attributes:

(1) The head is not the typical corn snake pattern as those areas of gray coloration are larger than is normal in a typical corn snake, but not as dramatic as in a 'good' Bloodred.

(2) The abdomen is pretty much patternless, but there are traces of the typical black blotches at the very edges of the scutes running down the sides. Orange splotching may or may not be evident. But generally there is no black marking in the center of the abdomen.

(3) The basic pattern on both the lateral and dorsal areas are pretty much that of a typical baby corn snake. Maybe slightly less contrasty than normal, but if it weren't for #1 and #2, it would be discarded as a regular normal corn snake.

Generally I will tell people that I consider these as 'B' Grade Bloodreds and will price them accordingly.

Now it is entirely probable that even many of the normal corns I discard from a clutch like this will mature into just about fully patternless red-orange colored snakes. I have seen this happen time and time again. But would I call those animals 'Bloodreds'? Why no, I would not.

Will all of the 'A' Grade Bloodreds turn into perfectly patternless red-orange animals with absolutely NO pattern visible? Of course not. But I think the closer you get to the ideal animal in a baby, the greater are the chances that the adult it becomes will be that perfect Bloodred stereotype.

IMHO, of course.

 

[Clint Boyer]

That really helps......

There is quite a hub-bub on ks about the whole Bloodred issue. It's good to hear from someone that has knowledge and experience with it from the start. Most of the folks that are raising kane about it don't know the whole story.

Thanks for taking the time!

 

[Darin Chappell]

I threw this out for discussion on the KS forum, and this seems like the place to do it here.

I understand the origins of the bloodred name, and I realize that things have changed from that original strain. However, given the current problems seen with calling a morph that is probably best described by its PATTERN consistencies by name describing a COLORATION, I submit the following.

Let's call them a name that actually describes the pattern mutation as it works/looks. I suggest that we call these snakes "faded" corns, because, IMO, that's what they truly are. Some of these may be bloodred, some pewter, others normal in coloration, but they ALL have a fading pattern to some degree or another.

I realize that changing the name of an established morph such as bloodred may well be impossible, but it will never have any chance at all unless we discuss the issue. Likewise, it may well be that "faded" corns never catches on as a name, but I am certainly open to everyone submitting alternate names. However, I would hope that the names suggested would be ones concerning the pattern mutation itself, rather than the possible future coloration of the adults.

It has also been suggested that whomever it was that originated the bloodred morph should have the privilege of changing the name. Fine, but I don't even know who that was. So, maybe we could compile a list of suggestions, and the originator could choose one of those, or come up with an original one of his/her own. Whatever the case, I think we ought to take the bull by the horns rather than passively accepting a "color" name for a "pattern" morph.

Just my thoughts on the issue.

 

[Darin Chappell]

By the way, Rich, could you possibly post a picture of the lone female from that original strain you have left? I know you're always swamped and don't have time for pictures very often, but you have really peaked my curiosity! I would especially love to see a belly shot on her to see what you mean by the differences between the original strain and the currently available bloodreds (oh . . .I mean, "faded" corns!).

Here is my bloodred male and his belly. He's about as dark as I have seen in person (the flash washed him out a bit).

 

[Serpwidgets]

Good question...

Thanks Rich for the info, that was a lot more of the story thatn I've previously heard.

I honestly wonder if anyone really knows the "whole" story behind them, and that kind of bugs me.

IIRC the "originator" of the animals was Eddie Leach (mentioned in the Manual) but I don't remember who actually coined the name. Is this guy even alive? Is he still involved in any way in the hobby? Does anyone on this planet know anything about him other than his name? I also have NEVER heard this name in any other context, or in any other discussion. I've always been curious about that, it would be great if someone knew him and could do some kind of fact-finding mission for the rest of us.

I've also never really heard a single word about:

• where the original stock came from,
• what they looked like,
• if they were less or more red or darker or lighter than the "pure" linebred strains,
• did some or all of them even express the pattern or anything, or was that just an oddity that popped up after the first generation and he thought it was neat so he kept it?

I mean, there are so many questions about the origins of them that don't even get asked, let alone answered.

 

[Rich Z]

You know, at one of the Tampa shows I attended recently, a young lady walked up to the tables and asked me about the origin of the Bloodreds. I replied that my understanding is that Eddie Leach originally created the strain and the first ones that I knew of sold commercially were sold by Bill and Kathy Love. I bought my first ones from Bill and Kathy in the early 80s or so.

She smiled and nodded her head and thanked me saying "Yes, I know, I'm his daughter." I believe she said she works in a veterinarian capacity, but I honestly don't remember much more than that. Anyone attending shows as a vendor can appreciate why this would be. But if I'm not mistaken, I believe she gave me one of her business cards. If someone is interested in following up on the historical data, I believe she may be a good lead and I'll try to locate that card, if I can.

The original stock came from the St. Augustine area, particularly a town called Hastings, FL, if I remember correctly. You may sometimes hear people refer to 'Hastings Corns'. I believe what Mr. Leach did was do collect a group of corns that typically had rather uniform coloration with reduced pattern and selectively bred them to enhance this trait. As to where the white belly came into play, and how any of this seems to resemble a genetic trait is anyone's guess at this point. I still cringe when I write "het for Blood Red". But darned if it doesn't act like it!

Maybe I'll start an Aztec Blood Red strain someday and drive everyone crazy.

 

[Rich Z]

Oh yeah, I forgot to add this.

As far as I know, Bill Love actually coined the phrase 'Blood Red Corn'.

 

[Rich Z]

Let's call them a name that actually describes the pattern mutation as it works/looks.

Darin,

This could open up a whole big slimy can of worms!

Sometime a while back I posted some thoughts on 'A' Anerythrism in this forum. If you get a chance, try to locate it and see what you think. In a nutshell, I believe the term 'Anerythrism' is misapplied. Those animals are NOT the result of having red/orange removed. Those colors have been REPLACED with melanin. If you took a normal colored corn snake, and extracted the erythrin, I guarantee they would look nothing at all like what we are calling Anerythristics. Play around with PhotoShop a bit to see what I mean.

Acutally Hypermelanistic would probably be a much more accurate term for what we are seeing.

IMHO, of course.

 

[Darin Chappell]

"If you took a normal colored corn snake, and extracted the melanin, I guarantee they would look nothing at all like what we are calling Anerythristics."

I'm pretty sure you meant to write "erythrin" there instead of "melanin." Right? No big deal, I just want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly.

I recall that thread, and I agree that they should likely be called hypermelanistics. I'm sure trying to change ANY established morph's name would be a total nightmare. Even so, I sure wish the bloodreds were called by a name that describes the pattern mutation rather than the coloration of a minority percentage of the snakes that carry the genes.

I still vote for "faded," but I'd love to hear any other suggestions!

 

[Serpwidgets]

a nutshell, I believe the term 'Anerythrism' is misapplied. Those animals are NOT the result of having red/orange removed. Those colors have been REPLACED with melanin. If you took a normal colored corn snake, and extracted the melanin, I guarantee they would look nothing at all like what we are calling Anerythristics.

Hey, you really got me to thinking there. I know you had mentioned it before but I never put any serious thought into it until now... my initial thoughts on it were:

1- Charcoal replaces red with iridophores. It would explain why the blizzards don't have fleshy pink saddles.

2- Anery might simply remove red, and there might be a lot of underlying black already there that we don't pay attention to, which is why normal hatchlings have deep brown saddles before the reds bloom.

Does the melanin go away as the reds come in? My money is on "no." If the Erythrin is "closer to the surface" than the melanin, the red light is reflected before the melanin can absorb it, so we don't really "see" the melanin after the reds come in. And there's another reason which you'll see later...

It would also explain why (or it might be a lack of experience) I am under the impression that amels don't seem to be able to reach that "true" deep redness in the saddles like a lot of normals can. Amels seem to hit the limit at "almost true red but a hint of sherbet coloring." (Or maybe I just haven't seen enough of them? Seriously, I don't look for amels or stare at them when I see them.)

The thing is, "hypermelanistic" is no more accurate because that leaves the impression that it's simply increased in black and the reds are still there. Anerythristic at least gives me the impression that it's totally lacking in red pigments. But then I've already come to associate the name with the appearance so I'm biased.

Play around with PhotoShop a bit to see what I mean.

I don't think Photoshop is going to give us the most accurate answer, because I think (as opposed to have any actual information) the colors on corns are in layers, with some being able to exert their influences "before" others do.

This isn't simulated in photoshop by doing color changes, because images are manipulated in such a direct way. IMO you'd have to separate pigment content and then make a set of subtractive layers in photoshop... Start with full (255,255,255) white and "Erythrin" absorbs blue and green, Melanin absorbs all, etc. Then you could manipulate each layer's opacity in order to get the same brand of color mixing.

As far as I've been able to determine, the melanin content is best tested (by people like us who don't have fancy scientific chemical testing equipment anyway) by looking at the sheds... Normals have lots of black, amels have none. Hypos have noticably less, lighter normals less than darker normals, etc.

The melanin content seems to be directly indicated by the opacity of a shed skin. Seems a fair enough indicator, right? (This is why I'm convinced there's already tons of black under the red saddles of normals.)

I would think a reasonable test for us to try and determine if Anerys are also hypermelanistic is to compare shed opacity between normals and anerys. I'd be curious to see the results of a large number of comparisons...

(And BTW what's up with Lavenders' sheds? Mine is freaky-colored, almost yellow. Totally different than all of my other corns including my snow and amel. Are all of them like that?)

 

[Serpwidgets]

Oh and another thought on this...

Has anyone tried to breed a "grade A" bloodred specimen to a normal, and then cross the F1s to try to recover a totally normal-patterned, yet extremely hyper-red cornsnake?

 

[Rich Z]

Achhh!! Yep, you are right. I'll go up there and edit it. Danged fingers! They knew perfectly well what I meant!

 

[Rich Z]

As far as I've been able to determine, the melanin content is best tested (by people like us who don't have fancy scientific chemical testing equipment anyway) by looking at the sheds... Normals have lots of black, amels have none. Hypos have noticably less, lighter normals less than darker normals, etc.

The melanin content seems to be directly indicated by the opacity of a shed skin. Seems a fair enough indicator, right? (This is why I'm convinced there's already tons of black under the red saddles of normals.)

Hmmm.. Now this is just a gut feeling, and not really something I have thought about all that much, but what you are saying brings it to mind. Granted, shed skins to me are just something that I throw into the scum bucket to be composted with all the other organic matter working with animals generates.

Anyway, my impression has always been that melanin, or the darkening of the coloration, was only skin deep. In other words, I felt that it overlayed the over colors rather than itself being overlayed. Your examination of the shed skins seems to support this. Otherwise if the shed skin was an indicator of the color components in the snake, and the red coloration overlaid the melanin, then why aren't the shed skins reddish in color?

Of course, we could have two mechanisms at work. No reason at all why there can't be two layers of melanin, I guess. Hypomelanism may remove the top layer only.

Or perhaps your analogy earlier about the way colors are displayed on the computer monitor screen is actually more on the mark. The scales contain a combination of pigment cells in close proximity that the eye resolves together as a single unit of color. One or more of those discreet dots being altered or missing would completely change the color being perceived. Suppose each layer had this sort of an arrangement in how it produced perceived colors as well as a variable amount of transparency? It would probably give you an almost unlimited amount of variation possible.

Hmm, I really should read over this again to see if I sound like a jerk, but I have to run.... I didn't put a lot of head scratching into this one.....

 

[carol]

Lots of great food for thought Serp and Rich. I really don't know what to think of anery A. I am still boggled as to how pastel ghosts and those bright pink bubblegum snows happen with a total lack of red. I think I'll be reading this thread a couple of times. Now you want to get in to Caramel too?
Darin, I think "blended" would be better that "faded" becuase fading sounds more like colors get washed out. With what I have seen with my bloodreds is the background color darkens more than the blotch color fades. Although "blended" really doesn't sound too catchy.

 

[Rich Z]

I guess the problem I would have with 'faded' or 'blended' being used as a cultivar name is that it would be way too general. For instance, I have a variety of Silver Queen Ghost that appears to be losing it's pattern and will probably look like a faded pattern gray snake eventually.

Pewters can have this same faded look, as can Lavender Blood Reds, Amel Blood Reds, etc. Stripes and Motleys will often lose most of their contrast as they become fully mature, which would lend a faded look to them as well.

Anyway, welcome to 'Cultivar Naming Hell'.

I believe that both 'faded' and 'blended' would need to have other qualifiers added to the name in order to make it more accurately descriptive of what someone would expect the animal to look like if they have never seen one in person.

BTW, sooner or later we need to address naming conventions for corn snake cultivars. I've been leaning more and more towards something like this:

Color -> Pattern ie. Amelanistic Motley, Butter Stripe.

When two or more colors are present in the same animal, I tend to list them in chronological order, but this will become harder and harder to figure out as time goes by. Plus I think it is reasonable to expect that the longer the name made by the multiple combinations of colors and patterns, the more likely it will become that it will eventually find a single name to more easily fit the tongue when saying it.

As a for instance, I now have some animals that combine all of these genes: Amelanism, 'A' Anerythrism, Caramel, and Motley. No one is apt to want to refer to them as Amelanistic 'A' Anerythristic Caramel Motleys, now are they?

 

[Darin Chappell]

Carol,

Yes, I see your point. However, I am speaking specifically about the pattern of the animal, not the color. So while the color does tend to blend together, this is really brought about by the pattern fading away as the snake grows older. This is especially true when you look at the animal from the dorsal, to the lateral, to the ventral veiw. It stays relatively slodily patterned at the top and gradually fades away as you move downward. Hence, "faded."


Rich,

You're actually kind of proving my point when you talk about how the pewter, amel bloodred, and lavendar bloodreds all fade in their patterns also. I believe we should be naming the pattern mutation that is common to all of them. They all fade away; THAT is the common denominator for the pattern of those morphs. Now, the colors are vastly different, but that is based upon line breeding and the introduction of other recessive genes. The pattern mutation stays the same in all of those morphs, though, and THAT is what I believe an animal can be "het" for.

It's really no different from the Silver Queens and Crimsons. True, these morphs have their own designations (and rightly so), but genetically they are simply anery "a" and hypomelanistic. You have line bred your stock to achieve those certain colorations found in crimsons and silver queen ghosts, but the simple recessive genes have not changed (I won't get into the non-compatable forms of hypo, here).

I think that the general pattern of these bloodred variation corns is static. I think it is a simple recessive gene just like amel. I also think that we should be naming the pattern morph for what it is. I suggest "faded" because that is what the PATTERN does. We can call really dark, red faded corns "bloodreds." Is that anymore confusing than calling hypo miami phase corns with that "Serpenco" look "crimsons?" We can also call charcoal faded corns "pewter." Does that make it any more confusing than referring to "sunglows?" Both of those animals are the product of combining two simple recessive genes (faded and charcoal for the pewter, and amel and hypo for the sunglow [yes, I know not all sunglows are hypo, but play along here for a minute]).

My point is that whatever we call these animals, once it is known that "faded" (or whatever) = pattern, it is a simple recessive gene that is responsible for it, and that they come in all sorts of colors, we will have made the leap from something that is difficult for many to grasp to something that is no more complicated than motley or stripe are. We all know what amelanistic motley looks like. Is it so hard to think about what an amelanistic faded could be?

About the confusion caused by other morphs resembling the "faded" morph, I can see where that will be intitially troublesome. However, there are many people that cannot tell anery "a" apart from anery "b." Many people have trouble distinguishing motley striped animals from striped ones. Look how many light toned aneries there are out there that LOOK hypo, but are not. Are we going to be too confused to continue separating the ghosts from the light aneries when someone line breeds aneries to the point of being even more indistinguishable?

I just want to get away from this idea of calling what is, I believe, a pattern mutation by a color determined name. There is nothing bloodred about a pewter, anery bloodred, amel bloodred, lavender bloodred, or caramel bloodred, but they ALL fade in their pattern.

By the way, I have to give Serp a lot of credit for what I am saying. I don't mean to say that I have stolen his ideas (at least not intentionally), or that he even agrees with me on ANY of this. I'm just wanting to recognize that it is because of what he has previously written that I have been thinking about this problem A LOT for the past few months.

I may be completely wrong about all of this. However, I think the discussion is fascinating, and I look forward to any and all ideas from the rest of you!

 

[carol]

I am kind of on the fence on the new name idea. The more you think about it...even though "bloodred" is a terrible name for it... Changing the name and explaining to everyone what it is (and getting everyone to use it) would probably be more work than keeping the name the same and just keep explaining to people what it is and that "bloodred" is just a bad name.
I think even if someone came up with a better name, we would still have people get confused and asking what exactly it is. I just don't think a better name would clear up much confusion, but that is just my .02
Hey Rich, now that you reminded me, do you still have that anery that was getting "white" spots? I remember you complaining that "the durned color kept fallilng off".

 

[Darin Chappell]

Again I agree with you, Carol (my wife's name is Carole, so I get a lot of practice saying that!), but consider this for a minute. I imagine that the very first motley that was produced by Dr. Bechtel was a normally colored motley. However, because of the unique brightening effect of the motley gene, there are many normally colored motlies that are a very bright copper color.

What if Dr. Bechtel had ignored the pattern mutation and, focusing on the color improvement, called the morph "copper corns." That would have been fine in the beginning, but then we would have amel copper corns, snow copper corns, charcoal copper corns, and anery copper corns. The pattern would have been the common denominator in all of these, but because of their original name, we would be having to explain how an animal named for its bright red/orange coloration could also be anerythristic (no red/orange) at the SAME time.

Kind of like we now have to do with anery bloodreds. Really, is there any more of a nonsensical name than anerythristic bloodred????

As for the name change, I agree that it will be difficult. However, if we could agree on a name to change to, and we got Rich Z., Don S., and Kathy L. (each of whom have commented on the confusing nature of the current name), or even two of the three to go along with it, I think you'd see people lining up to buy them ASAP. Nearly EVERYONE knows what an opal corn is now, for example.

This is especially true when you consider that, under my idea of things, bloodreds would still be called bloodreds, and pewters would still be called pewters. We just wouldn't be calling animals that are faded in pattern by color coded names when they have not been line bred for that coloration. Serpwidgets has a "bloodred" that definitely has the "faded" pattern mutation, but she is not terribly red at all. Why call her a color name that she does not show? Tradition? I think we need a better reason than that.

 

[carol]

I imagine that the very first motley that was produced by Dr. Bechtel was a normally colored motley. However, because of the unique brightening effect of the motley gene, there are many normally colored motlies that are a very bright copper color.

What if Dr. Bechtel had ignored the pattern mutation and, focusing on the color improvement, called the morph "copper corns." That would have been fine in the beginning, but then we would have amel copper corns, snow copper corns, charcoal copper corns, and anery copper corns. The pattern would have been the common denominator in all of these, but because of their original name, we would be having to explain how an animal named for its bright red/orange coloration could also be anerythristic (no red/orange) at the SAME time.

Excellent comparison Darin!

How about "Faded/Blended Corns with a white belly where the color creeps in and doesn't blend in that are born with grey heads" Corns?