Ultra Mystery...

[SODERBERGD]

Btw . . .

Speaking of what new horizons of corns are yet to be discovered out there, what about melanistic? The suffix of ultramel is 'mel' if 'ultra' is perceived to be the prefix. Once we have melanistic animals out there, 'ultra' and 'mel' will = ultramel. Just some more corn for thought.

A similar thing is happening in many different snakes. In the bulls, they called the first hypomelanistic white sided bulls 'ghosts'. They were a faded version of the white sided bull and therefore were similar to what we call ghosts in the corn world except they have white, mostly patternless white sides. In the bull snake arm of the industry, they now have fully patterned anerythristic (axanthic) bulls. Once they combine hypomelanism with those, they'll truly have ghosts, but that name is already taken by the hypo. white sided bulls. Now, they'll either have to change things around (too late) or have a snake called ghost that isn't pointedly accurate compared to the new hypomelanistic axanthics.

I think forethought bears more detailed consideration in naming these morphs. Sometimes it's not enough to think of everything possible in the future. How about thinking ahead for some of the not-so-possible things too? Some of the morphs we have today are ones I'd never have imagined yesterday, but melanistic is one I have empty cages for right now.

 

[Rich Z]

What? You mean you can't think of a good name for a snake that's pink and purple or orange and purple?

How about 'Figment' corns? (Okay, okay, too Disney-esque...) Prismatic corns? Dunno. 'Pink Elephant' corns? :duck:

-Kat

I rest my case...... :shrugs:

 

[Kat]

what are the Amel offspring of an Ultra X Ultra breeding referred to as since they are co-dominant Ultra?

Ultramel is effectively normal het ultra, het amel.

Since the current theory is that ultra and amel share the same allele, there shouldn't be any amels popping up from ultra x ultra. If one did, it would disprove the theory.

Think of it as a snake has two slots for a gene 'A'. There are various types of gene 'A'. There's the normal gene A, the amel gene A, and the ultra gene A. In any one snake, you may only have two gene As. If one of these gene As is the normal gene, then the snake appears normal. If both are amel, then the snake is amel. If both are ultra, the snake is ultra. If one is ultra, one is amel, the snake is ultramel. Since an ultra snake has both slots filled with ultra genes, you cannot have an amel gene in there, and thus cannot produce amel offspring.

That having been said, ultramel X ultramel will produce about 25% amels. These amels, since they have both slots filled with the amel gene, are still called amels.


-Kat

 

[gardenmum]

That having been said, ultramel X ultramel will produce about 25% amels. These amels, since they have both slots filled with the amel gene, are still called amels.

OK. Then any amel produced in a clutch with ultras, say out of an ultra X butter, ultra X amel, etc., do not carry the ultra gene? They are strickly amels?

Yep, of course, it took a few minutes to sink in. OK. If the ultra gene was in the amels, of course, they would then be Ultra hypos since both are on the same allele. OK.

 

[ecreipeoj]

OK. Then any amel produced in a clutch with ultras, say out of an ultra X butter, ultra X amel, etc., do not carry the ultra gene? They are strickly amels?

Not exactly. Ultra X Butter = 100% Ultramels het Caramel. Ultra X Amel = 100% Ultramels.

Now if you breed and Ultramel X Amel = 50% Ultramels and 50% Amels. The amels produced from this breeding do not carry the Ultra Hypo gene. You are right that an Amel, aa, can not carry the Ultra, uu gene. There are only three possibilities. Amel, aa, Ultra, uu, and Ultramel, ua.

I like the name Ultramel, but it doesn't matter to me. It certainly works in conversation about the Ultra mystery. To me it means exactly what it is, a het for Ultra and Amel and not Ultra Melanistic. What does amel mean anyway? I don’t think it means anything, but we know it is short for amelanistic. Amel probably does have some prefix meaning, but you know what I mean. The names we come up with in the Corn World are just jargon, specific to this hobby which have different meanings to us than someone else.

I bought a stunning Amel Orange Pueblan at the Anaheim Show. The breeders told me that the Amel Orange Pueblans are “SICK”. If I didn’t have kids in high school, I would have thought they were ill, but since I do, I knew that he meant AWESOME! When I first started hearing my kids use “SICK” I just shook my head, but now it seems half way normal to me. I do not think I will be using that term to describe my snakes however.

It is fine to not like a particular name that is suggested for a particular morph, but shouldn't there be some suggestions of a better name to go along with the opposition to the one that is not like? I haven’t heard any suggestions really.

They look like dark amels, with ruby eyes so what name would describe their appearence? I suspect that their eyes may turn to a more normally colored eye when they mature. This may be why we think the “Goldust” are Ultra Caramels, but they may be Ultramel Caramels.

Ultramels are similar in color to a Bloody Mary or how about just “Ruby” Corn. They are a ruby red color. Shorter is sweeter.

 

[Serpwidgets]

This picture shows the genotypes and phenotypes:

 

[Serpwidgets]

Note that the Ultramel pictured above (which came from an ultrahypo crossed to a butter motley) is a nice demonstration of the expected intermediate phenotype.

Having said that, I don't think all identifications will be that simple. Some ghosts are darker than some anerys. IMO it's unwise to assume that the intermediate phenotype will always fall clearly between the two.

Ultramel is effectively normal het ultra, het amel.

Motley/stripe is a non-normal het. Ultramel is a non-normal het.

Since the current theory is that ultra and amel share the same allele, there shouldn't be any amels popping up from ultra x ultra. If one did, it would disprove the theory.

If a striped corn popped out of motley X motley, it wouldn't disprove the allele theory. It would more likely prove that the snake was misidentified by someone who assumed that they couldn't possibly be carrying the stripe gene because they look like motleys.

They look like dark amels, with ruby eyes so what name would describe their appearence?

The individual we have here fits the definition of "tyrosinase-positive albino." However, I hate that term the more I hear it, especially the way people assume it's some holy grail of traits, so there's no way I'm using it.

I'm using Ultramel. It's short, sweet, and to the point. And since there's no such word, it means whatever we say it means.

 

[ecreipeoj]

Chuck, Since your Ultramel is out of a Butter it is most likely suffering from a high dose of yellow pigment. Mine and others that I have seen are much darker red. This example shows how much they can and will vary.

I was thinking about this thread today while I was working, and the Ultra Hypo name is actually not very fitting as well. Every time I see a photo of an Ultra Hypo, they are anything but an “ultra” form of hypo. They are very standard looking. Very pretty, but look more similar to the Standard Hypo than any of the other known hypos. They were most likely named, because of the Ultramels that were popping up in the clutches and not for the morph of Ultra. The Lava and Sunkissed Hypos are more of an extreme form of hypo than the Ultras are. Should we change the Ultra Hypos name as well? I don’t think so.

I was also thinking about which group they would fit into better now that we know they are an allele with Amel. Should they be in the Hypo Group or should we start an Amel Group, which would include Amel and Ultra? Even though Ultras are an allele with Amel, they are not an amelanistic type morph.

 

[Rich Z]

Well, let's see now. How many ways do we have now to describe some new genetic mutation or a combination of them in a single animal?

1. The technical manner using the genetic traits in combination.
   • Hypomelanistic Lavender
   • Amelanistic Motley
   • Snow Striped
   • Etc....
2. The descriptive manner using words describing approximately what the animal looks like.
   • Opal
   • Amber
   • Blizzard
   • Pewter
   • Etc.....
3. The locality specific names indicating examples from geographical areas.
   • Miami Phase
   • Okeetee
4. The Frankenstein method, naming a color or pattern variant using the creator or discoverer's name.
   • Fortunately we haven't done this with corn snakes, but some Applegate animals come to mind in other types of snakes.

So now are we proposing adding even more new and interesting ways to name these cultivars we are creating?

Personally, I think the name ultramel as a truncated form of ultra + amel is accurate. It denotes the two genes in the same animal. Like I said, depends on how you choose to read the word.

Well I then propose these following changes:

1. Hypomelanistic Lavender = Hypender
2. Blood Red x Charcoal = Brarcoal (or Blarcoal)
3. Amelanistic x Caramel = Amelamel
4. Motley x Caramel x Amelanism - Carmotamel
5. Amelanism x Anerythrism = Amelthrism
6. Hypomelanism x Caramel = Hyparamel
7. etc., etc......

I'm using Ultramel. It's short, sweet, and to the point. And since there's no such word, it means whatever we say it means.

I propose "Trundlefart Corn", then as a perfectly valid candidate for a name..... :laugh: Maybe that is the name I will choose for the Blood Red x Caramel.....

If we are even THINKING about generating some sort of naming standards down the road, maybe we are heading in the wrong direction.

 

[ecreipeoj]

What is your suggested name for a Corn which is het for Amel and Ultra? You hornets nest kicker you.

This is the first time this has occurred except for Striped and Motley. Talk about confusion. Striped/Motley, Striped Motley, Striped-Motley, Motley Striped etc.

How about a "Stotley" Corn or "Motriped" Corn ? They could be "MS" Corns or "S & M" Corns if nobody would get offended. LOL At least we would know immediately what we were talking about.

Unfortunately, your suggested name changes don’t roll off the tongue very well. LOL

 

[ecreipeoj]

How about Lavomel for Hypo Lavenders? It may be too late for Hypo Lavs. It has become ingrained in our corn jargon dictionary.

 

[Rich Z]

Give me time, I'm just getting warmed up to the idea...... :roflmao:

How about for Blood Red Butter -> Blutter Corn?

And I am REALLY warming up to Blaramel Corn for Blood Red x Caramel, and Blamber Corn for Blood Red x Amber.

What is your suggested name for a Corn which is het for Amel and Ultra? You hornets nest kicker you.

Heck, this JUST popped into my head this very instant: Paramel Corn.

I looked up the definition of "para", and I would say it seems to fit.

 

[zarozinia]

Rick, you are so funny

 

[Menhir]

Funny...

I don't want to offend someone - that's what I wanted to say before I start the rest

I see Richs argumentation as valid, especially for our normal known morph combinations with different morphs beeing on different allels. With this point of view, Ultramel leads to confusion.
BUT we have no "rules" for combinations on the same allel. That's where Hurley is right - we neither solved the F1 generation of Motley x Stripe naming problem nor do we have rules that say "use that or that combination to form a name" for morphs sharing the same allel.

Perhaps we should discuss how to build a "correct" name and then talk about giving that thing a descriptive synonym like "Butter, Pewter, Ghost".
Imho, that would solve the whole thing and will help us in the future, if more morphs pop up that share an allel with a known morph.

And one kind word to the last posts in this discussion - forming names like "BLutter" "blubbeldubupps" "hypomalebuttercrabumm" doesn't bring us any further! Rich has not enough time to make pictures of the HypoPewters for us, but has enough for making funny names :santa: (...don't feel angry, I just want to see new pictures ~hihihi~)

Greetings
Michael

P.S.: The "Blutter corn" is already named Sulfur but wouldn't it be fun to talk about Caramel-, Amber- and Lavenderbloodred? :eek1: :eek1: :eek1:

 

[snakepimp]

EUREKA EUREKA, Rich has found it!

Heck, this JUST popped into my head this very instant: Paramel Corn.
I looked up the definition of "para", and I would say it seems to fit.

That is the perfect name! I totally love it, and it is apt. I hope everybody gets behind you on this, I have been lurking this thread since it started and I certainly had no valid suggestion, but this is the most appropriate, I think.

 

[Clint Boyer]

This could be FUN!

How bout BUTTRED? :sidestep:

 

[paulh]

BUT we have no "rules" for combinations on the same allel. That's where Hurley is right - we neither solved the F1 generation of Motley x Stripe naming problem nor do we have rules that say "use that or that combination to form a name" for morphs sharing the same allel.

Perhaps we should discuss how to build a "correct" name and then talk about giving that thing a descriptive synonym

If a snake that is heterozygous for motley and striped looks like a homozygous motley, you call it motley. If it looks like a homozygous striped, you call it striped. If it's easy to tell the difference between a homozygous motley, a homozygous striped, and a heterozygous motley//striped, then "heterozygous motley//striped" is correct. If you want a sexy synonym, then there are no rules, as far as I know. It only has to pass the "I like it" test.

 

[ecreipeoj]

P.S.: The "Blutter corn" is already named Sulfur but wouldn't it be fun to talk about Caramel-, Amber- and Lavenderbloodred? :eek1: :eek1: :eek1:

I like the name Sulfur Corn, but I haven't really seen it used by anyone else but the person who named them, so is it accepted yet? (Thesaurus, accepted =“Time-honored”)

Time-honored, WOW! That seems to be the test. I guess this is why trying to changing the Bloodred name, met with such resistance.

Hypo Lav is becoming “Time-honored”. I think you are too late Rich.

I like "Lilac" Corns for Lav Bloods and from what I have seen of the Caramel Bloods, Trundlefart Corns would be appropriate.

 

[Menhir]

I like the name Sulfur Corn, but I haven't really seen it used by anyone else but the person who named them, so is it accepted yet? (Thesaurus, accepted =“Time-honored”)

Does anyone have or sell them except the person who named it? :sidestep:

I agree with you, the "market" will judge which names will be accepted and which not.
But, we are none the less allowed to make suggestions on how to name and suggestions for a special name. Whether the known breeders use them or not does not lie in our hand - doesn't it?

@Paul OK - is that what you said accepted by everyone - cause I like it that way! If this became accepted by everyone, we could go for searching an appropriate name for these animals, but can also label them correctly for the people that do not like descriptive synonyms. :flames:

 

[Serpwidgets]

I think this morph is going to cause a lot of confusion, and it has nothing to do with what name it has. We could name it "stickly staefers with four m's and a silent q" and it won't make any difference. People won't be confused by the name, but from the way the genetic makeup of this morph is explained to them. The problem is that people don't learn genetics, they learn and teach each other psuedo-genetics. This is a set of rules that don't make sense, and ONLY apply to single-mutant, single-locus, recessive traits.

The rules of psuedo-genetics are:
1- All named morphs are caused by recessive traits. (WRONG)
2- Homozygous is defined as something showing a trait. (WRONG)
3- "Het" is defined as something that doesn't look like the trait but is carrying a hidden gene for that trait. (WRONG)

And then real genetics rules are applied:
4- Any corn from a homozygous parent is het for that trait.
5- If neither parent is homozygous but one or both are het, then the offspring are all possible hets.

Psuedo-genetics is nonsensical, has no underlying explanation or logic, is very difficult to learn, and only applies to a portion of real-life cases. It might seem scientific, and it might seem like a shortcut, but it isn't. It's like learning "math" by memorizing times tables without ever knowing how to count, and then being confused by the fact that five times negative seven does not equal thirty five, nor does five plus seven.

The thing is, it's not any easier to learn all the complexities of psuedo-genetics than it is to just learn three things:
1- The fact that, with a few exceptions, genes are paired.
2- The 2 different ways a pair can interact with each other.
3- How genes are inherited.

Real genetics is a set of very simple and totally logical consequences of the above three items. It makes perfect sense, and applies to all simple-genetic traits. And despite popular belief, it only takes patience, not genius, to understand.

The fatal weakness of psuedo-genetics rears its ugly head with polygenic (Okeetee, Miami, Candycane, etc.) morphs, when dominant or codominant traits appear, when multiple alleles on the same locus are found, or when sexlinked traits are discovered. All of these things follow the very simple and easy-to-learn rules of genetics, but none of these things follow the don't-learn-anything-just-memorize-nonsensical-and-inexplicable-rules of psuedo-genetics. And the more traits we find, the more they will stray from those "rules."

By the rules of psuedo-genetics, the offspring of Okeetees are het for Okeetee. In reality, the offspring of Okeetees are not het for Okeetee. (But they have to be het!)

With psuedo-genetics, offspring of something homozygous for a codominant trait should look normal. In reality they take on a range of intermediate appearances. (But hets look normal!)

With psuedo-genetics, the normal-looking offspring of a parent het for a dominant trait are "possible hets." In reality, they either express the dominant trait (and are therefore het) or they do not (and are therefore NOT het.) (But... but... Wait. What?) :eek1:

These exceptions can be squeezed into psuedo-genetics by bending the rules. But it causes even more confusion and nonsensical complication, and makes it even harder than it was when there were only recessives to deal with. Even worse:

A multi-allele locus (like motley/striped and albino/ultra) cannot even begin to be explained by psuedo-genetics, and it violates ALL THREE rules.

• A morphed corn can, in reality, be heterozygous for two different mutants at the same locus and appear non-normal. (huh?)
• In reality, it is not homozygous (say what?) and
• its offspring are definitely het for something, (whew!)
• but they are not necessarily het for the parent's morph (… inconthieveable!)
• and they can even be definitely NOT het for the parent's morph… (?!?!!) :sidestep:

The motley/striped and ultramel morphs totally defy the fundamental and sacred rules of the "science" of psuedo-genetics. There's no rule-bending that can account for it, no naming convention that can make sense of it, and this is when everything hits the fan. This is where we are today.

... and it gets better.

In reality, genetics will also explain and make sense of sexlinked traits. But these will be the worst nightmare of the psuedo-geneticist. The first discovery will undoubtedly result in claims that "the universe is coming unraveled" and "this proves that genetics isn't the scientific answer to the question that the 'genetics experts' claim it is."

Do we really want to slam head-on into that brick wall, too? :crazy02:

I hope that more people will take the time to learn real genetics and teach that to each other instead of psuedo-genetics. It's not as difficult as it seems--definitely easier to learn than psuedo-genetics--and the rewards are more than worth the investment. It will make sense of all of the known morphs and future morphs, and we will be better able to search for new traits when we know what signs to look for.