Ultra Mystery...

[Charlie]

Okay, I know i am coming in late in the game but I have a few questions. Does this ultra just pop up or do you have to do certain breedings. The reason why I ask this is because my friend has this amber? that was sold to him as an exceptional caramel. We dont know what the parental stock was but this doesn't look like a caramel or an amber. Or atleast I dont think so. I am sorry if this is off topic too to what you guys are talking about but I just wanted to get my 2 cents in.

I think the ultra is awesome. I dont understand all the talk about the co-dominance and allele thing...haven't has a biology class for a while...but what is the significance of it if it does happen to be an allele or co-dominance. Excuse me if these are the same things...I am kinda lost.

I will attach some picture of the snake in question...let me know what you think.

 

[Serpwidgets]

"I think you've got it! I think THAT is a T+ Albino!"

Just to clarify, because I see the term "T+ Albino" being used a lot... it only means, "it's some kind of albino, and we don't know the mechanism other than to say it's not a T- albino." There is no "one" T+ albino.. there could be 50 different kinds of them.

-----

If Rainwater had anything to do with the "origins" of this line, it wouldn't be surprising that the source, lineage, or original naming of them was conveniently "lost." It sure sounds to me like a story where you'd expect Rainwater's name to show up and ruin things.

-----

The reason that the whole "dominant hypo" idea was rejected was because this only appeared to be the case when the amelanistic gene was present in the other "innocent" side of the equation. If you scroll back to Hurley's spreadsheets and try to explain all of those coincidences, you'll see why alleles theory makes much more sense.

The "T+, Hypo, Amel" picture is the perfect demonstration of the expected phenotypes of "Heterozygous Ultra/Amel, Homozygous Ultra, Homozygous Amel" that we've been discussing.

You stated that you still wish to "remove the amel" from the project...? (I think a lot of people are still not up to speed with this because they've only had to learn recessives to get along so far.) If you remove the amel from it, you have what look pretty much like Regular hypos. It's the ones that are heterozygous for Amel and Ultra that are the "new-looking" individuals.

Think of it like the ABO blood types if we pretend O is dominant:
There are three Alleles on the locus: a, b, and O
aa = Type A Blood (Or Amel)
bb = Type B Blood (Or Ultra)
ab = Type AB Blood (Or "Ultramel" or "T+")
OO, or AO, or BO = Type O blood (Normal)

Now, breed ab to ab. Try it (anyone who is reading this) with an actual Punnett square on a real sheet of paper to see what you get. That is what you're doing when you cross Ultramel to Ultramel (or "T+ to T+")

Breed aa to bb. (Amel X Ultra)

Breed ab to aa (Amel X "T+")

If these are acting like they are an allele to Amel--and it sure looks like they are--the best bet is that this IS ultra. Even if they didn't come from the same source, and even if they came from different wild-caught corns, it doesn't mean they can't be the same thing. There have been several Motleys and Hypos and Anerys found in the wild. In the absence of amel genes floating around in the population, this gene would not be any more "dangerous" to its carriers than hypo or motley are, so I see no reason for it to be super-rare.

It's also possible that the gene you're working with IS a third mutant allele on the Amel locus, but if it cannot be somehow distinguished from Ultra, it is for all practical purposes the same thing as Ultra, breeds the same, looks the same, and IMO should be considered the same until a better theory can replace it.

 

[Serpwidgets]

The reason why I ask this is because my friend has this amber? that was sold to him as an exceptional caramel. We dont know what the parental stock was but this doesn't look like a caramel or an amber.

I don't get it, it looks totally like an amber to me. :shrugs:

I dont understand all the talk about the co-dominance and allele thing...haven't has a biology class for a while...but what is the significance of it if it does happen to be an allele or co-dominance. Excuse me if these are the same things...I am kinda lost.

If you have my book, check out the "Alleles" section on page 16/17. It explains it all quite simply with a series of illustrations.

Otherwise, simply put, alleles are different mutations of the same gene. Let's call the normally functioning one "A."

The normally functioning gene can be mutated into form "a" so that it totally doesn't work at all. What do "Aa" and "aa" look like?

It could also, in another instance, mutate into a form "b" that does half the work of the normal gene. What do Ab, bb, and ab look like?

Or it could mutate into a number of other "functions." In mice there are something like 6 different mutations of the "albino" gene. We've finally found a second mutation of the albino gene.

Now try the same concept with "a" being Amel and "b" being Ultra, and ask yourself what "aa," "bb," "ab," "Aa," and "Ab" might look like. Then compare to the real-life results.

 

[Brian Miller]

Serpwidgets, I was thinking about all of these different hypo genes, and was wondering if maybe the Ultra gene shows more penetrance? than the other hypo gene. i'm by far not a genetics person but was wondering if this could be at least a very small part of the puzzle. Maybe you have already talked about that and have ruled it out. Just a thought.

 

[ecreipeoj]

I received this email from Mike Falcon about the origins and approximate date that he had the wild caught Corn that started the Ultras. I requested that he send me a photo if he can find it. That would be sweet!


The original one look like a cross between a red and a yellow rat snake a was caught in Hillsborough county (Tampa). It had very little black and was very yellow.I might have a picture somewhere in the archives. Sometime in the early 90's is my best guess. The one thing I do recall is the males are always nicer and more brightly colored than the females.
Hope this helps....

 

[Serpwidgets]

Serpwidgets, I was thinking about all of these different hypo genes, and was wondering if maybe the Ultra gene shows more penetrance? than the other hypo gene. i'm by far not a genetics person but was wondering if this could be at least a very small part of the puzzle. Maybe you have already talked about that and have ruled it out. Just a thought.

I think what will be most fascinating will be finding out whether or not we are going to be able to properly ID Ultras (uu) from Ultramels (au) and whether or not a hypomelanistic corn that is expressing Hypo (hh) and UltraHypo (uu) at the same time might also have a cumulative effect and be indistinguishable from the Ultramel (au) corns.

What I mean is that there might end up being some overlap, to the point where a visual ID of the individuals from a clutch of "au" and "uu" might not be 100% accurate.

If "uu hh" and "au HH" look similar enough, there will be plenty more problems because of misidentification.

If either or both of these turn out to be true, people will claim that the universe is coming unglued, but it won't invalidate the underlying genetics. It would definitely make it more difficult for us to know which genotype we ended up with from certain crosses, and may require breeding trials.

 

[Rich Z]

It would definitely make it more difficult for us to know which genotype we ended up with from certain crosses, and may require breeding trials.

How would anyone be able to sell babies?

There is already a problem with the Sunkissed/Hypo Okeetee lines. I have some clutches that are the results of breeding adult Okeetees het for Sunkissed and ALL the babies look like regular Hypo Okeetees. In the parents I have that are het for both Sunkissed and Hypomelanism, I can see both types in the resulting offspring, but can I say with any certainty at all that those Hypo looking Okeetees are actually type 'A' Hypomelanism?

Based on what I see with the previously mentioned clutches, I would have to say "no". But what do I mark them as when I put them on the tables at the shows?

 

[ecreipeoj]

It sounds like we may have to sell some hatchlings based upon the parentage and list the hatchlings most likely morph, but not guarantee it.

I have a feeling that the Sunkissed are going to throw us another mystery soon. I definitely have two different looking phenotypes and the results of my Snow Motley X Sunkissed breeding is always lurking in the back of my mind. I can’t wait until next year to do a couple breeding trials with the happy couple. It is unfortunate that the Sunkissed involved in my mystery is a female, because I will only get to do one test or maybe two with her.

She will have to be mated with a different Snow Motley and see what comes out. The Snow Motley will get a different Sunkissed and hopefully, something interesting will become of it. I only see a few possibilities.

1)My Snow Motley is het for Sunkissed Hypo. (Very unlikely)

2)Sunkissed Hypos are an allele with one of the three other recessive morphs involved. (Others have bred Sunkissed to Amels and Motleys that I know of, but I haven’t heard of them being bred to Anery A.)

3)My Sunkissed is homo for some other mutant trait that caused the results.

Kathy did tell me that she produced Sunkissed Hypos from a breeding to an unrelated Okeetee that she did not suspect was het for Sunkissed. She thought that the Okeetee must have been het for Sunkissed and didn’t think about it any more. She bred the Sunkissed from that clutch to other Sunkissed. Was it het for Sunkissed or was something else involved?

 

[ecreipeoj]

I ran into some more suspected Ultramels at the NARBC, show in Anaheim, CA from two more breeders. Some breeding results that were reported helped to support the Ultramel theory and some created new questions.

Breeder #1. This phenotype popped up in his collection. He mixes and matches genes fairly randomly and had no idea where the gene came from. He didn’t know what they were and came to my table to see if I could identify them. They looked exactly like the Ultramel I received from Kat. Here are the breeding results that he reported.

Ultramel X Sunglow = ½ Ultramel and ½ Amels. I did not see any of these Corns, but this is the result we would expect.

Ultramel X Butter = 100% Ultramels, however some of them were very yellow and looked more like Ultras to me. I haven’t seen any Ultras hatchlings before, but there was a definite difference in some of the hatchlings. The breeder seemed to be able to tell the difference between an Amel and Ultramel, but since the Ultra had purplish areas around the blotches he lumped them together with the Ultramels and assumed they were a variation in color from the Ultramels.

Ultramel X Ultramel = 100% Ultramels. This is a result that I could not explain.

Breeder #2. I have known for many years and is very knowledgeable about genetics and corn phenotypes. He bought his suspected Ultramels as T+ and had them labeled as T+ at the show.

He is going to double check his clutches when he gets home, but he was nearly 100% sure that when he bred T+ X T+ he got 100% T+. When he bred T+ X Amel he got 100% T+. We went round and round about the Ultramel theory and I insisted that he should have got some Amels in his breedings and Ultras, and he just shook his head and held fast to his results being 100% T+ offspring in both of the above breedings. When he bred T+ to any other morph other than Amel, he produced Normal hets.

After we both discussed the Ultramel theory and his results until we were blue in the face and we both needed some Advil, we came up with another possibility. What if there was another gene that was an allele to Amel and Ultra, but instead of being co-dominant, was dominant to amel? I also thought later, that perhaps since Ultra and Amel are co-dominant to each other, it may be possible to get an Ultra gene that has more of a dominance over amel than the 50/50 split that we seem to be seeing.

If his T+ were actually Ultramels he should have produced some Amels even if his Ultra gene was of a stronger type and Ultras, but he did not. His results seem to suggested that he was using a Corn that was homo for t+ t+ and when bred to the same produced the same. When he combined it with amel, he would had to have produced double het for t+ a, but they looked the same as the homo T+. This would seem to be possible if the T+ was dominant over Amel. Hopefully, I can get him to post his results more accurately.

 

[Kat]

The plot thickens...

I've noticed, BTW, that the 'normal' offspring of my ultramel pairings often (but not always) have a very heavy brown-yellow tinge to them, looking very distinct from normal corns... This isn't the red-brown of some caramel lines, but rather a definite brown. Anyway... this year's clutch had a definite split in normal coloration, with two having a much lighter background and closer to normal saddle colors, and the rest of the normals being that odd yellow-brown. Anyone else hatched normals from ultramel pairings and seen (or didn't see) the same thing? I'm curious to know, as it would be interesting if one could determine which normals were het ultra by appearance.

-Kat

 

[Serpwidgets]

Ultramel X Ultramel = 100% Ultramels. This is a result that I could not explain.

A simple explanation is that we might not be able to tell the difference between an Ultra and an Ultramel all the time. Some "motley/stripe looking" snakes could be pure motleys and we could be puzzled at why crossing them never produces striped corns. IMO it's entirely possible that one or both parents was homozygous ultrahypo.

The other huge question I have, in all of the reports, is "100% of how many?"

when he bred T+ X T+ he got 100% T+. When he bred T+ X Amel he got 100% T+.

IMO same scenario: he could have very light ultras that we assume are ultramels. How much variation in lightness should we expect, especially once they've been outcrossed to a lot of different bloodlines? If his T+ is simply homozygous Ultrahypo, it all happened the way it's supposed to.

BTW, what did his "T+" animal(s) look like, how different were they from Ultras, how were they different from amels, and how different were the offspring from either parent?

 

[ecreipeoj]

I will try to get some answers to your great questions in a few days. The second breeder and I have a lot of unpacking to do and snakes to water.

The first breeder had 8 hatchlings at the show from an Ultramel? X Butter. 6 were classic Ultramel or “T+” looking. Dark red with dark red eyes and purple borders. The other two, I am pretty sure were Ultra Hypos. It is very likely that his Butter was het for Ultra.

The second breeder had about 6 hatchlings at the show that I saw from a T+ X T+ breeding. All 6 looked just like the Ultramels posted on this thread. Again, they were dark red with dark red eyes with purple around the blotches. So far, every Ultramel or T+ that I have seen in person or in photos looks very similar. I did not see any of the adults, but perhaps we can get some photos. I am sure that we can get the numbers of hatchlings produced in each clutch and there phenotype.

It is difficult to get all of the answers to questions at a show when we were both trying to run tables. I have his email address and I will try to get him to post his results himself. It sounded like there were several clutches produced from his “T+” so it will add a great deal of statistics to this thread.

 

[Serpwidgets]

It is difficult to get all of the answers to questions at a show when we were both trying to run tables.

Heh, yeah, understood.

 

[Serpwidgets]

Just reading back a bit, and realized I hadn't applied this to the most recent results:

...whether or not a hypomelanistic corn that is expressing Hypo (hh) and UltraHypo (uu) at the same time might also have a cumulative effect and be indistinguishable from the Ultramel (au) corns.

...

If "uu hh" and "au HH" look similar enough, there will be plenty more problems because of misidentification.

 

[ecreipeoj]

I just received this email from Carlos, reporting his final results of his Hypo Tests with the Lava and other hypos. His test with the Sunkissed, confirms my results with the same cross. His Ultra Hypo X Christmas results may be one more small piece of the Ultra puzzle. It seems likely that the Christmas hypo that he used was het amel.


“Joe. Lava X Sunkissed, 13 normal (okeetee) babies, they are not the same hypo. Ultra hypo X Christmas a bunch of normals and 3 that I have to check on them very carefully, they look like amel, but they are different. Keep in contact. Carlos”

I am still working on getting the info on the T+ breedings and Don S did a few Hypo Test as well, so hopefully we will have some more interesting information to chew on soon.

 

[kocorns]

Wow!! Rich, thoes babies are absolutely breathtaking. Awesome pictures, beautiful snakes.

 

[ecreipeoj]

I just received this email from Carlos. He has another Hypo Test due to hatch soon. The Lava male that he has, has proven to be het for Amel. Will anybody be surprised if he gets some Ultramels from this clutch?

"I'm waiting on a small 5 eggs clutch from the male lava to a ultra female, I know that test was done, but one more will be good too." Carlos

 

[Kat]

If he doesn't get em, we may have to rethink our theory.

-Kat

 

[Serpwidgets]

I'd like to add this to the record. I realize there will always be naysayers no matter how much proof is supplied, but maybe this will sway some of the people on the fence or who think it's an outlandish idea...

Taken directly from
Reptile and Amphibian Variants: Colors, Patterns, and Scales
by H. Bernard Bechtel (1995)
Page 59

...we acquired a hypopigmented male black rat snake that was captured in 1974 in Pulaski County, Arkansas. He was generally yellowish in color (xanthic), with no discernible pattern, and had brown eyes. He was bred with a normally pigmented specimen, producing all normal offspring. Crossbreeding of F1s demonstrated that the decreased pigment in this snake was caused by an autosomal recessive mutation. A pure strain was produced for further breeding experiments.

When the original male was bred with a tyrosinase-positive albino, all of the young were hypomelanistic, phenotypically intermediate in pigmentation between the xanthic specimen and a completely amelanistic specimen. The results indicate the presence of three alternative alleles at the tyrosinase-positive albino locus. The two recessive albino alleles are each recessive to the wild type, but neither recessive gene is dominant to the other.

IMO, this story is relevant to Ultramel theory, and this thread, in the following ways:

1- the "hypopigmented male" was hypomelanistic. It was called "xanthic" simply because he looked very yellow. Don't let this confuse the issue, he's a hypo.

2- They breed Hypo X Normal and get normal F1s. And then F1 X F1 = some Hypos. This was enough to prove a recessive genetic trait.

3- In the second paragraph, the original "hypo" male was bred to an "amel" female. The result was offspring that were intermediate between hypo and amel, just like... dot dot dot... our Ultramels.

4- "The results indicate... " Notice that the results did not require more than two dozen additional crosses as proof, they simply indicated, end of story. If his results from one cross indicated, what can we make of the results of over 25 crosses, every single one of which is consistent with the expected results?

5- He supplies a perfect description of how Ultramel is expected to act: both mutants recessive to normal and codominant to each other, intermediate appearance.

The point I'm trying to make is that it's not just some wacky idea that's technically possible but won't ever happen. A situation exactly like what some of us are calling Ultramel is not only possible, it was proven to exist in black rat snakes by Dr Bechtel himself.

(Incidentally, notice that this was at what Dr Bechtel called the "tyrosinase-positive albino" locus in black rat snakes. IMO this locus probably exists in corns, and the same situation may eventually surface in corns on ANOTHER locus in addition to the Ultramel situation we have at our tyrosinase-negative (amel) locus. It may be that one of our currently known hypo forms IS at that locus, and the other allele will appear someday to confuse everyone once again. )

 

[paulh]

There is a major difference between Bechtel's situation and ours. His xanthic and t-positive albino were very rare mutants when he did the work. So he could be pretty sure that his t-positive snake did not carry a xanthic mutant gene or two and his xanthic did not carry any albino genes. OTOH, amelanistic is a very common mutant gene. Keeping it out of where we do not want it is more difficult now than for Bechtel then.

We have anecdotal evidence that is consistent with the hypothesis that ultra and amelanistic are alleles. But the hypothesis needs more testing, IMHO.