"tiger" corn

[hediki]

hey i was asking the guy who was selling the :tiger" corn on kingsnake.com and he said i should read this

tell me if it makes genetic sence. and i kinda beleave him because it doesnt look alot like a aztec or zig-zig.

 

[Menhir]

I think the site is online already for a long time.
I'm kind of skeptical, that there are no test-breedings, no newer results and NOTHING new besides high prices. Why doesn't he show a Tiger x Normal clutch? Are these animals hom. Tiger or het. Tiger which does matter when dealing with a dominant trait.

That doesn't mean someone is lying or that all these things are not true - it's just that I like facts and not only "maybe"'s on and on and on.

 

[drizzt_19]

tell me if it makes genetic sence. and i kinda beleave him because it doesnt look alot like a aztec or zig-zig.

You are right it doesn't look like aztec or zig-zag...That is most likely because it's a motley-striped corn...

Are these animals hom. Tiger or het. Tiger which does matter when dealing with a dominant trait.[\QUOTE]\

If they don't show the trait then they can't be het...If the gene is domoinant or co-dominant then it can't be carried as a het...It's either there or not...


I read the link and still think it's a joke...Anyone wanna buy my super tiger ghost corn???Here is a pic...

 

[Menhir]

You are right it doesn't look like aztec or zig-zag...That is most likely because it's a motley-striped corn...

How many Motley-Striped corns do you own that show that amount of ventral checkering?

Are these animals hom. Tiger or het. Tiger which does matter when dealing with a dominant trait.[\QUOTE]

If they don't show the trait then they can't be het...If the gene is domoinant or co-dominant then it can't be carried as a het...It's either there or not...

Sorry, perhaps my english is too bad, but I have no idea what you are talking about.
Every single gen can be carrier hom or het. Recessive, co-dominant and dominant simply decide the way we see it in the phenotype (in this case).
Dominant: het. will look like hom.
Co-Dominant: het. will look different than hom
Recessive: het. won't be visible, hom. will be

 

[drizzt_19]

How many Motley-Striped corns do you own that show that amount of ventral checkering?

I currently have no motley stripes, although I have seen quite a few that do have alot of belly checkers...Most of the ones I have seen with belly checkers have a few in the front and then the sides wash them out eventually...This is just what I have seen in some motley striped corns...I am sure others have seen it as well...

Sorry, perhaps my english is too bad, but I have no idea what you are talking about.
Every single gen can be carrier hom or het. Recessive, co-dominant and dominant simply decide the way we see it in the phenotype (in this case).
Dominant: het. will look like hom.
Co-Dominant: het. will look different than hom
Recessive: het. won't be visible, hom. will be

It's not your english it's mine...I confused my self on that one...

If they don't show the trait then they can't be het...If the gene is domoinant or co-dominant then it can't be carried as a het...It's either there or not...

What I meant was if this stripe is "co-dominant" as he says then the normal loooking snakes can not be het for "tiger"...I have never known a co-dominant gene to be present in a normal looking snake...

 

[Menhir]

I currently have no motley stripes, although I have seen quite a few that do have alot of belly checkers...Most of the ones I have seen with belly checkers have a few in the front and then the sides wash them out eventually...This is just what I have seen in some motley striped corns...I am sure others have seen it as well...

Do you have pictures of these snakes?
Your theorie involves the used males to be het. motley as well, right? But why didn't there pop up any motley, but these "tigers" with checkers? Sounds a little strange to me.
Or does he claim, that the original stripe female did look different than the tigers?
As I said, so many things unclear...

It's not your english it's mine...I confused my self on that
What I meant was if this stripe is "co-dominant" as he says then the normal loooking snakes can not be het for "tiger"...I have never known a co-dominant gene to be present in a normal looking snake...

Yes, that is right. On that site, he claims it to be dominant - than you can't even sell normal looking snakes with "tiger" being involved. On the other side, diffused is said to be co-dominant and co-dominance can range from 1 to 99 in a scale of 0-100 - so a "normal" looking snake wouldn't be a problem for a co-dominant het. because of the difference being not noticable because of the individual differences of each snake.

 

[Jynx]

No matter how "ugly" the original male is, if he could produce hatchlings expressing the "new" gene with the female, you'd think they'd keep him in the program. Given the ratios of "tiger" hatchlings to # of eggs, it makes perfect sense that the male was carrying a het.

I for one do not believe that this is anything more than a motley-stripe as well. I have also hatched out a few motley-stripes that had some degree of belly checkering. It varied from hatchling to hatchling, but it looked very similar to the "tiger-corn," having most of the checkers to the sides and towards the neck area. All of these motley-stripes were produced by the same 2 adults, and neither showed the traits visually. As a matter of fact, I didn't even know the adults were het for motley/stripe. Neither were sold to me with this knowledge. Which adult is het for which trait is awaiting breeding trials in the upcoming season.

Though I don't agree that this is a new gene based on the information given, it does bring up an interesting concept. If that was a wild-caught female, and she was bred to a wild-caught male, then many of our (for lack of a better word) more "domestic" cultivars are becoming increasingly larger in wild populations. I think thats a very exciting discovery, more so than a motley-stripe with a few belly checkers.

 

[Susan]

I am thoroughly convinced that the "tiger" corn is an aztec/zigzag. I live just north of the Tampa Bay area. When I first started keeping and breeding cornsnakes (1995), I purchased an entire clutch from a local individual whose only pair of cornsnakes were locally caught. I have personally seen these snakes and both showed a very small amount of zigzag/aztec pattern. The clutch of 18 had 14 normal patterned and 4 nicely zigzaged hatchlings. I kept the 4 patterned hatchlings plus one normal. I no longer have the normal nor a pair of the zigzaged corns from that clutch (and no pictures unfortunately), but still have one pair in my collection. When bred to non-patterned cornsnakes, most of the hatchlings have also been normal patterned but the occasional zigzag/aztec hatchling DOES occur. When bred to another zigzag cornsnake, a higher percentage of patterned hatchlings are produced as well as a few normal patterned hatchlings. This is consistent with the known heritability of the zigzag/aztec trait. These zigzags from local wild-caught parents have also been bred with other zigzag lines and also produce zigzag/aztec hatchlings consistent with the trait. From among the hatchlings I have produced using these and other zigzag/aztec breeders, I have produced several "tiger" corns.

Here are pics of the 2 adults (the pic with 2 snakes is the adult female - lighter color - with her nephew - darker color) I still have from the original clutch I purchased locally as well as 2 "tiger" hatchlings.

 

[Jynx]

Susan you bring up a very good point, especially since those two hatchlings are very similar looking to the "tiger" corn. That could explain why they think it is a dominant gene. Come to think of it, I have an 05 amel wide-stripe zigzag that has very sparse belly ckeckers. Is he a "reverse tiger" then? lol

I think the only way to prove it is to breed the w/c female to a motley and/or stripe, and to another aztec/zig zag of at least somewhat similar heritage.

 

[Khaman]

Not to chime in on either side of the argument but other than the co-dominant trait it sounds some what similar to the stripes here http://www.cornsnakes.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1595 . I proved that my female is not a carrier of the “regular” stripe gene because I bred her to a snow stripe and got all normal pattern amels. She and the male from that line also have normal checkered ventral patterns.


Not that I am saying that this is a new stripe gene because I have only done one test breeding just that the two may be linked.<O
<O

Female http://www.cornsnakes.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=5784 <O

Male http://www.cornsnakes.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=5789 <O

 

[Susan]

What an awesome pair! THOSE are definately something different, but I'm still sticking to the zigzag/aztec theory. We really don't know alot about what gene(s) are in involved in that pattern group, but since it has been proven to appear suddenly from parents with no known such patterns in the lineage, I would theorize it is a combination of multiple genes that are finally being able to match up more frequently in captivity than would normally happen in the wild. We are also seeing more variety in the patterns...the original "zipper" zigzag, aztec, wide-stripe and now probably "tiger". I would also theorize that even more variations are likely to appear in future generations. I'm looking forward to seeing the results of more test breedings and I hope you include a zigzag test sometime. That female is simply gorgeous!

 

[Khaman]

What would a zigzag test be? If she herself was zig-zag or aztec you would think that at least some of the offspring would have pattern abnormalites to some degree but they have none.

I lost the female last season all I have are her offspring.

 

[Susan]

They don't always have patterned offspring when bred to a non-zigzag, just sometimes. The percentage of zigzag offspring and degree of zigzaging increases when bred to another zigzag. It's like a compounding effect. If the offspring you have carry some zigzag genes, you'll see more pattern when bred to a zigzag...higher percentage of hatchlings with at least some pattern and also some with better/larger patterns.

 

[drizzt_19]

Do you have pictures of these snakes?

No I do not...As I stated I have this in some motley/striped corns...

Your theorie involves the used males to be het. motley as well, right? But why didn't there pop up any motley, but these "tigers" with checkers? Sounds a little strange to me.
Or does he claim, that the original stripe female did look different than the tigers?
As I said, so many things unclear...

Yes so many things are unclear, however if the male was "caught" in the vicinity of the female then it is posssible that he could be het motley/stripe...

He claims that he got a "tiger" from the first breeding with the ugly male and in the second breeding...Then he decided to breed her to 2 other different males and the story of the "tiger" corn ends...

That is why I am thinking of the motley/striped theory...I guess we will never know...


However I do find Susan's theory of a nice aztec/zigzag corn interesting...That may better explain the belly checkers and the boldness of the stripe and the side patterns that appears to still be there...

 

[Serpwidgets]

hey i was asking the guy who was selling the :tiger" corn on kingsnake.com and he said i should read this

tell me if it makes genetic sence. and i kinda beleave him because it doesnt look alot like a aztec or zig-zig.

To sum up:
Original female X WC male: 3 eggs hatched, hatchlings were 3-4 inches long, 1 "tiger" hatchling.

Same cross again, 2 eggs hatched, hatchlings were tiny, 1 "tiger" hatchling.

Normal siblings both times were fed off, and not test-bred.

There you have it, 2 test crosses involving the same pair. A grand total of 5 hatchlings, two of them showing this odd pattern. This is nowhere near enough to show a predictable ratio or any kind of heritability.

This is consistent with many possibilities, one of which is that the female is a motley or motley/stripe, and the WC male was het for motley. Again, just for the record, there are motleys with checkers on their bellies. Their presence does not automatically eliminate motley or the motley locus as a possibility. I don't know where the assumption that "all WC animals are 100% mutant free" came from, but it is a bad assumption, especially with genes like motley and hypo and anery.

Another thing to consider is that when you get messed up clutches where a significant portion of the eggs die and the ones that do hatch are messed up (for one, being 1/2 to 1/3rd the size of regular hatchlings) then all bets are off and it's a very bad idea to make claims based on such clutches.

What's missing is:
A- at least one good-sized healthy clutch from a "proven-homozygous-normal-at-the-motley-locus" test cross, which produces more of the "tiger" pattern, and
B- 3 existing generations to compare to each other, and
C- at least one good-sized healthy clutch from a "proven-homozygous-motley-at-the-motley-locus" test cross that produces all normals.

Until then it's all just a wild guess, and none of the evidence points strongly in any particular direction, IMO.