Ultra Mystery...

[SODERBERGD]

proof . .

Joe, I didn't have time to read your entire book "grin" , but I'll get back to it when I have more time.

You asked the question something like "how much more proof do we need?". Well, for instance, when these babies this year mature, some may not exhibit what we expect from ultras. Maybe some will be hypos that resemble ultras. Also, how many of us are pretty sure hypo wasn't in the animals we bred to ultras, but can't be 100% sure? As we all know, hypo (like other non phenotypic traits) could be hiding in a snake for many generations until you breed it to just the right snake to manifest them. I would never presume that the females I bred are positively not het. for one of the hypo genes out there. There appears to be a phenotypic look for the ultra, but just as I have seen black on some of them and white on others, are we sure there aren't some ultras that don't fully have this "look"? Ones that could pass for the other hypo snakes?

Again, I will know more after seeing some of these grow up. Are they classic hypos OR ultras? My problem is that I've never seen an adult ultra. I have adult ultra motleys, but as we all know, motley usually exacerbates the colors and hypo mechanism in most colors. I've seen the ultra ambers in pictures. Does anyone have several pictures of regular ultras and hypos together? I don't mean just their best examples. I'd like to some more of these before deciding which hypos I have here. Is there a look that definitely distinguishes an ultra from a different hypo? If not, we'd better slow down. I don't think we serve anyone by being this eager to name these and later have to change our stories. It's not like a book is holding the presses for our collective opinion. As some have suggested, an interum name is fine. I think since ultra has been used to date, it should still be used. Then, if a change is necessary, it'll be the final one in 2005 or 2006 instead of yet another "name of the month" for this snake.

 

[Rich Z]

Actually I have three adults (2 males, and one female) of what Mike Falcon sold to me as "Ultra Hypomelanistics", which are not Motleys. I bred my GoldDust (Ultra Caramel) male to the female Ultra this season and am waiting on the eggs to hatch. The males have been bred to different cultivars over the years, and it is the new definition of what we are really working with that might clear up at least part of the confusing things I have seen.

As time allows (getting pretty hard to come by lately) I will post pics. But getting photos of those adults is going to be pretty difficult to do. They would absolutely try to eat my camera in the attempt. They have a pretty pronounced feed response, to say the least. One of the males can just about stand on the tip of his tail to reach up to grab a meal (or a hand that looks like one to him).

Has anyone else gotten the uncomfortable feeling that we are just seeing more of the tip of the iceberg that is only just giving us a glimmer of just how BIG this berg is?

 

[elaphe4herps]

Has anyone else gotten the uncomfortable feeling that we are just seeing more of the tip of the iceberg that is only just giving us a glimmer of just how BIG this berg is?

YAH! I feel like what we know is a speck of sand on the entire continent of antarctica!

 

[Serpwidgets]

Not trying to be nit picky but is this possible?
If my understanding is correct, there can only be 2 alleles at one locus making it impossible to have 2 amel and one Ultra at the same location.
Am I on the right track here?

Yes, but that's the point... she's trying to come up with ways to disprove it. If you can create snakes proven to have 3 alleles at what we think is one locus, you can (probably) throw out the alleles theory. (Aren't there "XXY" humans? Heh... there's always a loophole. :sidestep: )

 

[ecreipeoj]

Joe, I didn't have time to read your entire book "grin" , but I'll get back to it when I have more time.

Now, it is only five teensy weensy paragraphs and is only 466 words. It wouldn’t even qualify as a short essay. :santa:

Your response is right behind mine at 372 words and a very nice page in the book we are just beginning to write. :cheers:

Let us assume that the Ultra and Amel genes are alleles. What does this mean to us? How will it effect our breedings? Is the Ultra a Hypo type gene or Amel type? The combo seems to produce a Hypo phenotype corn that is extreme.

If the implausible explanations for these odd results comes to be true and they are not alleles, no harm has been done. We are discussing a theory and everybody has their own position on what the evidence means. I personally do not know why so many people are afraid to state a theory that may be proven wrong. I don’t see why they should be labeled by someone as a fool. This forum is the perfect place for fresh ideas to be discussed. I am surprised that this has not come up before. The light apparently just did not come on. It only takes the light to come on in one persons mind to let other see the light.

This theory is very interesting, but I am personally more interested in what the Ultra gene will do when combined with other morphs other than Amel. The Ultramels combined with other morphs may prove to be interesting, but a distinctive look is needed for a morph to catch on and be desirable. If this theory is true, then it may only provide us with information to explain the results within clutches when the Ultra and Amel genes are involved. It would be very interesting to see if the Ultras, Homo Ultra, Hypos and Hypos can be picked out of a clutch that contains the three, like Rich’s results with the Sunkissed and Hypo double het breedings.

We have always thought that the Ultras were an extreme form of hypomelanism, but from what I have seen from photos of Plain Jane Ultras, they are not any more extreme than other hypos. The extreme Ultras that we have been referring to are perhaps the Ultramels that are in fact, perhaps, maybe, more than likely, half Amel, so no wonder they resemble Amels.

 

[Serpwidgets]

I agree 100% with Joe. (In fact, we've been on the same wavelength through this whole thread.)

The whole point of trying to discover/define stuff as Mendelian traits is so we can use that knowledge to make reasonable predictions about their offspring. If our predictions are reasonably accurate, then we benefit from our "knowledge," even if we are later proven "wrong."

 

[SODERBERGD]

agreed

I guess I missed where someone was arguing with that logic. I too want to get to the bottom of this, but if we hastily identify this incorrectly, do-overs are in order. I'm saying I recognize that most of my new snakes that were sired by my ultra motley are different from my "classic" hypos, but I'm not prepared to say they're the result of the new gene. I just think this study isn't double blind with the unknown elements involved. I'm obviously old fashioned in wanting more evidence before going to the extent of giving something a name. I've seen so many instances of rushing into things and getting them wrong. It'd be nice if a couple more folks come forth with their results if they're sure of the heritage of their lines.

 

[paulh]

Let us assume that the Ultra and Amel genes are alleles. What does this mean to us? How will it effect our breedings? Is the Ultra a Hypo type gene or Amel type? The combo seems to produce a Hypo phenotype corn that is extreme.

IMHO, it is more productive to group mutants by locus rather than by appearance. Because alleles may have sonewhat different effects, but they are affecting the same biochemical mechanism. The amelanistic mutant apparantly produces a nonfunctional version of the tyrosinase enzyme. If the ultrahypo mutant is an allele of amelanistic, then it is probably producing a functional tyrosinase enzyme that doesn't work as well as the normal tyrosinase enzyme.

I would love to see "tyrosinase positive albino" expunged from the language. People seem to think it means something. At most it means that we think the tyrosinase enzyme is working normally, but we don't have a clue as to what is not working right.

The classic test for allelism is to cross a pure breeding individual or individuals of one strain to pure breeding representatives of the other strain. If any normal babies pop out, then allelism is disproved.

This assumes that both mutants are recessive to the normal allele. If one or both is dominant to the normal allele, the breeding is more complicated.

Problem is that ultrahypo has been crossed with so many other things that it seems pretty hard to get any that don't have other mutants mixed in.

IMHO, get 100 non-amelanistic babies from assorted ultrahypo x amelanistic matings. If none of them is normal at the a locus, then we'd have good evidence of allelism.

 

[Kat]

Yes, but that's the point... she's trying to come up with ways to disprove it.

Exactly.

IMHO, get 100 non-amelanistic babies from assorted ultrahypo x amelanistic matings. If none of them is normal at the a locus, then we'd have good evidence of allelism.

Agreed... if we get take some double-homozygous ultras and breed them to amels, that'll prove one way or another whether we're dealing with an allele or just some gene that has affects on genes in other loci. The trick is finding some double-homozygous ultras...

-Kat

 

[Clint Boyer]

I'm with you guys on most of this stuff.

This one has me stumped though:

If you can create snakes proven to have 3 alleles at what we think is one locus, you can (probably) throw out the alleles theory.

How can this be proven?

 

[Menhir]

The trick is finding some double-homozygous ultras...

-Kat

Why should that be hard work?
If you find an Amel - let's say not het. Ultra (in which way ever, which shouldn't be that hard for Ultra) perhaps a proven breeder.
What are the possibilities?

(I write Hypo to indicate, that you can distingush the hatchlings from normals because of less black pigment!!! Cause we don't know yet, wheter they hom Ultras and hetUltra+Amel look different and so on....)
If they are Allels:
Homo Ultra should lead to 100% Hypo
Het Ultra & Amel should lead to 50% Hypo, 50% Amel

If they are NOT allels (and Hypo masks Amel):
Homo Ultra => 100% Normals
Homo Ultra het. Amel => 50% Normals, 50% Amels
Homo Ultra, homo Amels => 100% Amels

4 Ratios that should be distingushable - not?

 

[Rich Z]

Hmm, although I have used the Ultra animals I have in several breeding projects, I have NEVER bred them with anything that was homozygous for Amelanism. I normally don't bother with breeding anything Hypomelanistic (which is what I considered the Ultra line to be) into Amelanism. Which, in retrospect, had I done this, it may have either clicked on the light bulb, or just driven me crazier. The fact that some of my Ultras are apparently het for Hypomelanism was quite enough as it is.

Actually, I'm not even sure I am grasping all of this entirely, so perhaps others are as well. Perhaps someone can jot down a short "Idiot's Guide to what this Ultra thing really is". I'm not sure I will ever SELL any of these things just for fear someone will ask me what they get when they breed it to a Butter Motley het for Hypo Stripe, or something along that line....

 

[Menhir]

Writing an Idiots Guide for RichZ is a strange feeling, huh? ~lol~

To shorten it up, use a Amel where you can be 99% shure it's not involved with Ultra.
Take some kind of Ultra, whatever you want.

If you get Amels and Ultras, the chances are good, that it is the same allel.
If you get Normals or just Amels, they are not the same allel.

That's not an idiots guide but the first thing how I would start to "proof".
If you get 100% Ultra, this would really be some kind of q.e.d. - with 50% Ultra and 50% Amel, we would go into the direction of "what if it is het." and so on - I think thats why Kat mentioned using a homo Ultra animal. But imho, that not neccesary.

Greetings

 

[elaphe4herps]

Writing an Idiots Guide for RichZ is a strange feeling, huh? ~lol~

:roflmao:

From Hurley's spreadsheet though, no one has bred a homo ultra to a homo amel. :shrugs:. Worth a try?

 

[ecreipeoj]

Why should that be hard work?

I agree this should not be that hard to test breed for.

If they are not alleles then you should get 25% normals in the clutch when they are bred together even if they are both het for the other trait. The only possible way that you would not get normals would be if both parents were homo for a compatable morph like amel, Hypo or even Ultra.

If they are alleles, in any combo you can come up with, the clutch will be all hypos and amels. Ultra X Amel= all Hypos, Ultramel X Amel= half hypo, half amels.

We already have some breeding that have produced these results.

Don S: Ultra Motley X Butter = 8 amels and 13 hypos

Jason: Opal X Ultra = 12 Hypos

I could not find Jason’s last breeding on Hurley Spread Sheet so I did not use it.

If Ultra and Amels are alleles a normal should not be produced when the two are bred together wheither the Ultra is a “Super”(uu) Ultra or an Ultramel (au). When the Ultras are bred to Hets for amels, it adds proof, but is not conclusive.

 

[ecreipeoj]

From Hurley's spreadsheet though, no one has bred a homo ultra to a homo amel.

I was looking at that too. I think that Jason’s Opal X Ultra would be a Homo Amel X Homo Ultra breeding. Don’s Ultra Motley X Butter, seems to be an Ultramel Motley X Butter breeding.

I can of course come up with alternatives that would produce the same results as Jason’s and Don’s breedings by adding multiple hets or Homos, but until somebody breeds any Ultra X any Homo Amel and gets a normal, I will not be convinced that they are not alleles.

 

[Rich Z]

OK, so let's suppose that you breed an Ultra to an Amel and get 50 percent amels and 50 percent Ultras. Is that right?

You grow up those Ultras and Amels and do the following breeding:

F2 Ultra x F2 Ultra = ?

F2 Ultra x F2 Amel = ?

Now, let's make this even more interesting and practical.

You breed an Ultra to a Snow corn and get 50 percent Ultras het Anerythrism and 50 percent Amels het Anerythrism. Is that right?

You grow up those Ultras and Amels and do the following breeding:

F2 Ultra het Anerythrism x F2 Ultra het Anerythrism = ?

F2 Ultra het Anerythrism x F2 Amel het Anerythrism = ?

We are going to assume that the Ultra is NOT het for anything else in the above examples.

 

[Kat]

OK, so let's suppose that you breed an Ultra to an Amel and get 50 percent amels and 50 percent Ultras. Is that right?

Nnnno.... if we're assuming that ultra and amel are alleles, and assuming that the ultra is homozygous for ultra, you will get 100% Ultramels.

F2s would be Ultramel X Ultramel, or 50% ultramel, 25% ultra, 25% amel.

You breed an Ultra to a Snow corn and get 50 percent Ultras het Anerythrism and 50 percent Amels het Anerythrism. Is that right?

You'd get 100% Ultramels het anery.

F2s would be (and someone please double check me on this)...

1/16 snow
1/16 amel
1/16 ultra anery (appearance unknown)
1/16 ultra
1/8 amel het snow
1/8 ultramel anery (whatever that looks like)
1/8 ultramel
1/8 ultra het anery
1/4 ultramel het anery

We are going to assume that the Ultra is NOT het for anything else in the above examples.

Did that.

-Kat

 

[elaphe4herps]

Hold on here. The way I have been following this is that ultra (

) X amel (aa) will yield all ultramels (a

).

I love Chuck's gifs, so I'll use them to somewhat illustrate.
Also, I am assuming that we are considering the

genotype as the ultra.

anyway, the way i have been thinking is...
Ultra (

) x Amel (aa) = Ultramels (a

)

***Ultramels - looks like ultra and amel in the same animal***

Ultramel X Ultramel = 25% amel (aa), 50% ultramel (a

), 25% ultra (

)

and from there, you can re-create any other breeding experiment with the ultra, amel, and ultramel phenotypes/genotypes. Hopefully in a clutch like this (a

X a

) the 3 different phenotypes will be discernable from each other, with the ultramels being prevalent.

With anery in the mix :crazy02:!! Hmmm...let me think real quick and while im at it, let me double check my understanding of the ultra, amels and ultramels. :grin01:

Well, I guess while I was typing, Kat flew through and typed what I was thinking (ESP?!?). So far, I have just re-capped what Kat just said so anways, yes Kat you are right,

F2s would be (and someone please double check me on this)...

1/16 snow
1/16 amel
1/16 ultra anery (appearance unknown)
1/16 ultra
1/8 amel het snow
1/8 ultramel anery (whatever that looks like)
1/8 ultramel
1/8 ultra het anery
1/4 ultramel het anery

 

[elaphe4herps]

Hmm, i had too many pictures in the last post, it wouldn't let me post this:



From breeding an Ultramel het anery to an Ultramel het anery you would get what Kat just stated. I don't know if this will help anyone but I will include the genotypes in paranthesis with "rr"=anery and "RR"=wild type.

1/16 snow (aarr)
1/16 amel (aaRR)
1/16 ultra anery (

rr)
1/16 ultra (

RR)
1/8 amel het snow (aaRr)
1/8 ultramel anery (a

rr)
1/8 ultramel (a

RR)
1/8 ultra het anery (

Rr)
1/4 ultramel het anery (a

Rr)

:cheers: BTW- if I am understanding something wrong, PLEASE let me know.