• 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.

Ultra Mystery...

Well, I guess a decision of what to believe and from whom, is in order. At one point Mike Shiver told me the line he was working with are pure corns. Now he is saying they are not.

This indicates a credibility problem......

And yes Joe, you bring up a good point. We can no longer tell by sight which corns are "pure" and which ones are not. So basically we are completely at the mercy of the people selling them and what they tell us. And since greed is such a prime motivator in human beings, it suggests a rather disagreeable situation we are all in.

As far as what can be done about it, I seriously doubt that anyone will be able to come up with a solution satisfactory for even a majority, much less a unanimous agreement.
 
Hopefully there won't be too much damage control to have to go through... I've notified the buyers I've sold ultra-line hatchlings to (with the exception of a petstore which insisted that all corns were hybrids anyway... they may be right, at this rate)... it's up to them whether they feel it's necessary to return the snakes... not much more I can do on my end. I don't envy any of the larger breeders who got caught up in this...

Say... has anyone posted this discovery on the 'other' site? I think they have as much right to know as anyone else...

-Kat
 
I'd just like to say "I don't care." Not one bit. Not even a teensy tiny amount. If it hatches, sheds, looks, breeds, eats, sleeps, craps, and acts like a cornsnake, it is a cornsnake.

I find this whole "purist" thing ridiculous. I know it hasn't really had much discussion in this particular thread, but it always comes up in such discussions and I'm sure it'll come into this one too. I think the whole concept is like trying to define "cool" and then acting like everyone else is wrong or evil because they don't agree with your arbitrary definition. Like I said, ridiculous.

Can someone please define what a "pure" corn is? I mean--if you could know anything you wanted about a particular corn, including it's complete genotype, or any/all of its ancestors, all the way back to single-celled organisms if you want, or whatever--what criteria would determine whether or not it's "pure?"

Do "pure" corns have to come from two "pure" parents? And does a pair of "pure" parents give rise to "pure" offspring?

If not, how can you say any corn is "pure?"

If so, where did the first two "pure" corns come from?

Since there's a common ancestor that gave rise to corns and the other ratsnakes, doesn't that common ancestor have to be a "pure corn?" And doesn't it make all of those other ratsnakes "pure corns?"

Doesn't that also make toy poodles and great danes and weiner dogs "pure wolves?"
 
Serpwidgets said:
I'd just like to say "I don't care." Not one bit. Not even a teensy tiny amount. If it hatches, sheds, looks, breeds, eats, sleeps, craps, and acts like a cornsnake, it is a cornsnake.

I would be really disappointed if I thought I had a pure corn and it turned out to be a hybrid (or at least a few genarations back). But I agree with you, if it looks like a corn why not simply call it a corn and stop worrying about it.
 
I have to make this short. I agree that there are unknowns in the lineage of 'pure' corns everywhere, but to ignore a known hybridization is not right.
If it hatches, sheds, looks, breeds, eats, sleeps, craps, and acts like a cornsnake, it is a cornsnake.
A lot of snakes act that way, are they all corns? That's a pretty odd statement.
 
Clint Boyer said:
I have to make this short. I agree that there are unknowns in the lineage of 'pure' corns everywhere, but to ignore a known hybridization is not right.

Thats exactly what I was thinking when reading Serps posting. He is right when saying there are no ways to prove the "pureness", but you can prove it as long as you know, and so (if the person is honest) as long as the bredder knows you got the animal from and so on.


Marcel Poots said:
I would be really disappointed if I thought I had a pure corn and it turned out to be a hybrid (or at least a few genarations back). But I agree with you, if it looks like a corn why not simply call it a corn and stop worrying about it.

I don't know how these 2 sentences fit together... :shrugs:
You say, that you would be disaapointed, but on the other hand would also call the snake pure, when it looks like a corn?
Don't you think that people buying such a pure looking, corn named animal would also be disappointed when hearing that it's not pure???

I for myself decided not to keep "mixed" corns and just concentrate on the pure ones. Pure means for me, that I ask as deep as possible and as much back in history of an animal as possible whether it is pure or not. There is an high amount of believing in what you are told, but thats the same with the health or the genetic background of an animal, isn't it?

Time to leave now ~g~ :sidestep:
 
I guess I would say I agree with both Clint and Serp. I don't think someone should knowingly breed creating hybrids and try to pass them off as a "pure" corn. But, under the circumstances, if you have a morph that is there now and looks, acts, etc., etc. like a "corn" then is it not a corn? This situation begs the question, "how many of our corn morphs, if scientificaly able to be proven pure or not pure, would prove out not pure?". I wonder.

With the Ultra gene, IF indeed it is a "contaminated" corn, how would it be contained now? Granted, all breeders who know they have this gene could now label them as "hybrids" (if proven to be) if they choose to, but what about the many who got Ultra's as "plain hypos" over the past couple years and have not bred said hypo to a morph with an amel gene attached to it? So, they produce offspring carrying the ultra het and on it goes, and what about the one's who just choose not to jump on the wagon of labelling them as hybrids - which is their right and choice to make. Seeing as the Utramel look comes from the combined ultra & amel gene on the same locus, then it could crop up in someones breeding when they don't expect it from their purchased "pure corn". And are all the breeders going to be able to go back into their records and search for the people they possibly sold "contaminated" offspring to to advise them of this? Seems a bit daunting for anyone breeding more than just a few.

I think this can-of-worms has been left open much too long for any semblence of the worms to be put back in. My opinion only.

Me, I have always wondered about the term "pure" corn with seeing so many wonderfully odd morphs out there. And who's to say the corn you pick up in the wild wasn't a product of a rat/corn cross somewhere where the areas overlap? Using logic says that it is possible. I personally really like the "ultra" look and have a couple myself. I am on the fence right now as to how I would deem to refer to them should this prove to be a "non pure corn", but I tend to think it is a moot issue.

I love the corn and all it's varied forms.

Just my 2 cents.
 
Menhir said:
I don't know how these 2 sentences fit together... :shrugs:
You say, that you would be disaapointed, but on the other hand would also call the snake pure, when it looks like a corn?

I mean exactly like I said it. I am a pure corn lover. I would be disappointed to find out afterwards that I have been working with hybrids. But on the other hand I could sympathise with Serps theory. What's the big deal if you can't seperate the hybrid from a normal corn. We do mind hybrids but we don't mind breeding offspring back to parents to produce a certain morph. How messed up is that?
 
There are a lot of issues to consider in everyone’s mines concerning the current issue at hand. Do we ignore information that a particular line of Mutant Corns has hybrid Corns contained in its lineage? The majority of people would immediately answer no to that question. Is there a point in time or multiple generations of creating project corns that an Ultra Caramel Corn would be considered a pure corn? Most people would say that if it is “known” that a hybrid was ever in its lineage then, NO!, exactly like Creamcicles.

How much information do we require to say that our Corns are “pure“. From what I have read so far, it is the amount of trust that you have in the person you are buying them from and perhaps a little background on their lineage. I trusted Kat completely when I obtained the Ultramel het Lavender from her and I had a pretty good background on their lineage. If the current information that we have just learned about had never surfaced, then Rich and everybody else would have continued down the “Pure” path.

Everybody knows, or at least most people that have been interested in Corns for any length of time knows, how many people are involved in the hobby. How snakes are bought and sold, in pet shops, at snake shows, to and from wholesalers and between hobbyists. I have talked to thousands of people at snake shows who have 10 - 20 pet Corn Snakes in 10 gallon aquariums in their house and they all seem to breed a few and sell them to friends and pet shops. We also know that Corns Snakes have been bred since the 50’s and 10’s of thousands of people have had there hands in the reproduction and sale of Corns Snakes. We all know that Hybrids have been produced many, many years ago along with intergrades, which is a whole other topic but related. There is no record of the movement of any of these Corns and hybrids that have been bred in captivity and sold in various fashions except for word of mouth for about 50 years.

“If in is not known that my Corn Snake has hybrid blood in it then I consider them to be pure“. But what does a person really “know” about the Corn Snake they purchase. Most people “know” everything that I have brought up above, but choose to ignore it for purity sake. Hypothetically: If you had two choices to save your life. Would you pick A: My Amel Corn is pure corn. Or B: My amel corn is not pure, based upon what you really “know“. If you think about the purity of Mutant Ninja Turtle Corn morphs logically and use common since, you would most likely choose “B“.

The closest thing to Pure Corns that we have are the Okeetee locality Corns. We could start a registry if CAV or Chip or another Locality “freak” (This is good) would maintain it to keep track of the lineage of true Okeetee Hunt Club Corns. Now I will use one of Rich Z’s arguments against Hunt Club Okeetees, since he is a Purist and apply it to this topic. I am going to paraphrase and shorten his statement about Locality Okeetees. He said something like: “There can not be any pure Okeetees because many years ago, when I was breeding corns and was not really into marketing them to make money yet, I thought that I would help to repopulate the corns in Jasper County. I pulled off on “Such and such” exit (Which is in Okeetee Country) and released 100’s (I believe) of captive bred corn snakes into the wild that were from various backgrounds. These snakes would have bred with the local population of Okeetees and caused them to not be pure.” Can anybody perhaps apply this same logic to Mutant Ninja Turtle Corns that we breed in captivity, but perhaps multiply the times this has happened by a hundred or more.

I like to use Rich Z statements in arguments because he is respected and I am sure that he has this forum set up to notify him of any time that his name is used so he can monitor the comments and respond. His responses and opinions are always very interesting to read. I always chuckle to myself when I read about the history of the Caramel gene, which in fact was just brought up in this thread. I do not chuckle because of my opinion of the Caramel gene as a mutant type gene, but because of the story that we all except to show they are pure. I really like my Butter Motley Corns that I bought from Rich, but the originating Corn was bought from a Mom and Pops Pet Store. I found an Amel Corn in my local Mom and Pops Pet Shop that looked a great deal like an Amel Gopher Snake to me. Of course Rich Z’s expertise with Corns would make the identification of this originating Caramel Corn much more reliable and it was labeled as wild caught and confirmed by the pet shop owners. OK, that is good enough for everybody and myself included, but most likely the pet shop owners were into Tropical Fish or Dogs and Cats and did not have a clue about any kind of snakes. I could come up with many very plausible circumstances that may suggest that there is no proof of the purity of that particular corn.

I have always been a purist in the past, but I am on the fence now. What are we really trying to accomplish with our Mutant Corns anyway. A Hypo Lav Caramel Bloodred Corn in no way resembles a wild caught Corn Snake, genotypically or phenotypically. We can argue that when the Hypo Lav Caramel Bloodred Corn is bred to a wild corn snake that the normal phase looks just like a Corn Snake. When Kat bred her Ultramel Motley Corn Snake to my Lava Corn, the offspring looked just like a Corn Snake as well. What is the difference. Something is “known“. What do your really “know”?
 
Let's look at another scenario.

Wouldn't we all LOVE to lay our hands on a luesistic corn? So, if someone were to breed a LuesisticTexas Rat to a corn then line breed it many times out to reproduce the luesistic trait in a 75% plus corn, would that be a Luesistic corn? The original trait did not develope in a corn snake so in my opinion, that luesistic gene will always be a Texas rat gene. Thus, that snake would always be a hybrid.

If this Ultra gene is from another species, then any snake carrying or displaying that gene is not a 'pure' corn. I don't see how anyone could disagree with that.

If it hatches, sheds, looks, breeds, eats, sleeps, craps, and acts like a cornsnake, it is a cornsnake.
To what degree (and who decides) would this be allowed to go? We've all seen the pics of the Eastern Milk posted as a corn, right? So according to this philosophy, it is a corn because it looks, acts, etc, etc....
 
Last edited:
Clint Boyer said:
If this Ultra gene is from another species, then any snake carrying or displaying that gene is not a 'pure' corn. I don't see how anyone could disagree with that.
Clint has a very good point. At this point in time, I feel that the Ultra gene originated in Corn Snakes and the Ultra “Ambers” were a result of hybridization. There are a couple of reasons that I believe this to be the case. Falcon has maintained that the original female that produced the Ultra Hypo was wild caught. I just got off of the phone with Carlos, who lives in Florida and has actually talked to Falcon at the time and has seen this wild caught Corn Snake. Carlos, told me that Falcons story was very believable and he saw this snake himself and it looked like a pure Corn Snake to him

Although Falcon has always maintained that the origin of the Ultra Hypo gene was a wild caught Corn, I do not see how he could not have any knowledge that the Ultra “Amber” line was a hybrid. He has Ultra “Ambers” from Shivers and he was friends with Barr. I suppose that it is possible that he had no idea, but is seems very unlikely.

Andy Barr did breed hybrid Corn and Rat crosses and now Shivers has admitted that the Ultra “Amber” line was a result of Andy’s hybrid Corns. I also have information that the “Frosted” Corns that Andy sold were also a result of Hybrids. This leaves very little room for doubt that the Ultra Amber line is hybridized, but it does bring up other issues. Which Ultra Hypos are “pure” Corn and which are not? It would strictly depend on your definition of a “pure” corn. The brown bag test sure won’t work in this case. Another point to consider is if a gene originates in Corns, but is only 99% pure Corn, how is it different than a 99% Corn with a mutant gene that was discovered in Rat Snakes?

I completely understand Rich’s point about greed and integrity, but we do not need to point fingers in this case, but see how it applies to the Corn Snake world in general. It could be said that Rich and I are greedy to be asking and selling Corns Snakes for $1K and up, but there is not the dishonesty factor involved.

I use to breed Albino Striped Pacific Gopher Snakes and many Albino Kings. I was there when they were “discovered“. I also learned enough to know by talking to people at shows that just about all of the Albino Gopher snake subspecies and Albino King Snakes are Hybrids between subspecies. We could draw Pine Snakes and the Florida species of Kings into this as well. That was at least 15 years ago. Unfortunately, this type of thing has been going on for a very long time, and Corn Snakes are not immune to this underlying dishonesty and greed of so many people that have bred snakes over the years. Do we accept this or do we remain in denial.
 
To echo what's been said already, I don't believe that hybrid corns are wrong or inferior, and it's certainly likely that alot of existing corns probably have one or more non-corn ancestor if you trace back far enough... That having been said, I recognize that there are people out there who are hard core purists and not ever going to change... It would be doing them a disservice not to mention the potential hybrid background of these snakes, just as it would be a disservice not to mention to some orthodox jews that you thought you saw the cook putting some ham into the mystery meat for lunch. Yeah, that may sound like a silly example, but alot of the 'corn purists' are as convicted in their beliefs about corn bloodlines as some people are about their religious beliefs. If they want to be perfectionists, let them. Leaves morphs like Ultras and the (thus far) mythical leucy corn for the rest of us. ;)

-Kat
 
No right or wrong in my eyes, but knowledge is the key. If it's a corn call it a corn. If it's a Grey Rat call it that. If it's a hybrid......no sense in calling it a corn, the knowledge is then lost.
 
simple question

Just how pure does it have to be to be "pure"
Is 100% the only answer?
If it is, how can you prove this in any corn snake, given all of the circumstances and possibilities already given.
For instance, the possibility of a wild breeding between guttata and obsoletta or quadrivittata..etc, somewhere in a particular corn snake's lineage.
Now, as most of you could easily do the math, you know that within 12 years you can have a "corn" from a 50/50 mix at 98.437% pure.
This is if the snakes are bred at two years of age, which many people do.

corn to rat... each breeding thereafter to "pure" corn
F1: 50/50
F2: 75/25
F3: 87.5/12.5
F4: 93.75/6.25
F5: 96.875/3.125
F6: 98.437/1.562

now, this is not to promote calling known hybrids or intergrades anything other then what they are but at what time does it cease to be an intergrade or hybrid?

like I said, just a question...in no way a suggestion, thought or consideration to represent any snake as anything other then what it is known to be.
 
I agree with Clint, Kat and others that once the knowledge of a corn having a hybrid in its ancestry that this knowledge should be passed on with the Corns to their new slaves. (I mean owners). I think anything less may fall into the dishonest category, depending upon your view of the state of “Pure“ mutant Corns in the first place.

I have avoided Hybrids in the pass, because of the label that can be attached to a breeder who has them. This label is not fair. A breeder of pure corns, or both hybrids and corns can be just as honest or dishonest as the next guy. I guess my point in my previous post is that I feel that “Pure” Corns, at least of the mutant type, are most likely a myth. Trying to keep them as pure as possible is very respectable and I will always do my part to keep them pure. I also realize that what we are trying to obtain is an absolute impossibility under current conditions and past practices. Since I know this, I think that if somebody wants to have hybrids they should be respected as well as the Hybrid Morph. I have a feeling that the Ultra Caramels will go down the same road as Creamsicle Corns.

I have never heard anybody ever say that they did not like Goldust Corns in the past. They are very beautiful and perhaps better in many ways than Amber Corns. Even Rich Z, seemed to be impressed by them and participated in naming them. I am sure that everybody is anxiously waiting to see what his opinion is about the current situation with the Goldust Corns. He can send them to me if he doesn’t want them.

The only problem I see at this point is that I have several Normal Corns out of an Ultramel Motley het Caramel X Various Morphs. What would they be called? Het for Goldust? They may not even be het for Caramel. What are Hets for Creamsicles called? I see that there are various color phases becoming available these days. I have very little doubt that Creamsicle blood is very wide spread in Amels these days. This is the biggest and best argument against Hybrids. They will inevitably get mixed into the gene pool.

We were so excited about the Ultra Hypo gene being an allele with Amel, which it still is. What is the state of the Ultra Hypo at this time? Will some be considered pure and other not, or is it too late for that.
 
Kat said:
If they want to be perfectionists, let them.
If by "let" you mean "force," then yes, you are "letting" them. However, I don't believe that someone else's choice to pretend like they don't live in reality dictates that I have a moral obligation to go along with it.

The original trait did not develope in a corn snake so in my opinion, that luesistic gene will always be a Texas rat gene.
Well then you might want to get rid of your corns since they are cross-phyla hybrids. Yes, the gene for eye development which is in corns was originated in invertebrates, so any of your corns that have eyes are not "pure."

If you pull a lug nut off of a Tempo and put it on a Taurus, is the lug nut a Tempo lug nut, or a Taurus lug nut?

I also don't see why it's assumed that every wild-caught corn is automatically "pure." The very idea is "pure" nonsense.

What it really boils down to is that some people, maybe even most people, have a need to convince themselves that somehow their corns are "pure" (even though they can't actually define pure or classify any corns as pure or impure based on any kind of objective analysis) and then they think that it becomes everyone else's obligation to go along with this irrational idea. If purists want to convince themselves of something that cannot possibly be true, that's their own problem.

To what degree (and who decides) would this be allowed to go? We've all seen the pics of the Eastern Milk posted as a corn, right? So according to this philosophy, it is a corn because it looks, acts, etc, etc....
How much money must one have before they're "rich?" How long must a piece of string be before it's "long?" How much is "a lot?" Who decides?

What is a "pure" corn? I have heard the term thrown around at least a dozen times now, as if such a thing really exists. It doesn't.
 
Clint Boyer said:
To what degree (and who decides) would this be allowed to go?
I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it. The same goes for a corn. I have a problem with the assumption of "pure" because this cannot be true unless there's some objective and inflexible definition.

The corns themselves, both wild and captive populations, will change over time, and so will whatever definition there is. It has already happened, and it will continue to happen.

Ya know, a hundred years from now people will be freaking out over some guy who wants to breed a corn to a creamsicle because he might ruin the purity of the creamsicle lines. It will be no less absurd than this or any other "hybrid" thread.
 
So the guy that has an eastern milk that 'thinks' it's a corn is right, it's a corn, because that what he preceives? Not in my book, ignorance of what is true does not make does not make the falsehood true.

This has developed (not by my chioce) into a hybrid arguement, that's not my point. I'm niether pro or anti hybrid.

My point is that if there is a known genetic factor creating a mutation, it should not be ignored. Just because we can't prove it's 'pure' doesn't mean we can't prove it's not!

P.S. Serp, how did you come to name your 'Corn'snake guide? Is it because it's about 'corn'snakes? Maybe you should have just left the 'Corn' part out since you don't believe that any type of definition is valid. Maybe you could include your scientific definition of a cornsnake, that might help to understand your position.
 
Clint Boyer said:
My point is that if there is a known genetic factor creating a mutation, it should not be ignored. Just because we can't prove it's 'pure' doesn't mean we can't prove it's not!

:cheers:
Thats exactly the point!!!
As I already said, we can't be shure, that is pure - but if we don't know anything against an animal being pure, we should simply assume it to be pure.

Perhaps we should declare "pure" as "not knowing from an animal that any not pure corn was bred into the line - a WC animal can be assumed to be pure". :shrugs:
Some kind of recursive definition, isn't it? - I'm thinking too much in algorithmic patterns :crazy02:
 
Clint Boyer said:
My point is that if there is a known genetic factor creating a mutation, it should not be ignored.
It is not known where this particular gene came from. It is only known the effect it has on the phenotype. There is no such thing as a "pure cornsnake gene." No gene belongs to any one species.

P.S. Serp, how did you come to name your 'Corn'snake guide? Is it because it's about 'corn'snakes? Maybe you should have just left the 'Corn' part out since you don't believe that any type of definition is valid. Maybe you could include your scientific definition of a cornsnake, that might help to understand your position.
Like I said, if they are corn-like to me then as far as I'm concerned they're corns. I don't need a scientific definition. I'm not the one trying to claim such fine resolution as whether or not something is "pure." IMO someone who wants to get into what is or isn't "pure" does need a real definition.
 
Back
Top